Oral
Answers to
Questions

Cabinet Office

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Cyber Resilience

Stuart McDonald: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on improving the UK's cyber resilience.

Lee Anderson: What steps the Government is taking to strengthen domestic cyber resilience against potential impacts from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Steve Barclay: Our new national Government cyber security strategy sets out our approach to making the UK more resilient to cyber attacks and countering cyber threats. We have undertaken significant outreach within the Government and critical national infrastructure, including with the UK devolved Administrations, to provide mitigating advice to bolster UK preparedness.

Stuart McDonald: I am grateful for that answer. We know that Russian-sourced cyber attacks rose by 800% in the 48 hours immediately after Putin’s renewed attack on Ukraine. As his ground war falters, we can expect cyber warfare to be ramped up even more. I understand that EU countries are establishing a cyber security fund to protect civil society and the private sector against Russian attacks, so what steps are the Government taking to help civil society and the private sector to protect themselves?

Steve Barclay: We have set out a range of measures as part of our whole of Government, whole of society approach. That was the essence of the cyber strategy that we launched before Christmas. It includes working with local authorities, which have been particular victims, and takes on board the lessons from, for example, the attack on the Irish health system. It includes looking at regulation and helping with procurement so that products fit for cyber risk are bought. It has a particular focus on skills, with areas such as the north-west having a cyber corridor where we have, as part of our levelling-up work, a real focus on getting the cyber skills we need across all parts of the UK.

Lee Anderson: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been a wake-up call for everyone in this country. We are under threat of cyber attack every single day. What lessons have the Government learned from the invasion to prevent cyber attacks on our schools, education, transport system and all the things that we rely on every day?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Before the Russian invasion, the rationale for the national cyber strategy that we launched in December was to make the UK more resilient. As we have just discussed, that requires a whole of society approach, but it also requires specific action within Government, which is why I launched the further Government cyber strategy, working closely with the National Cyber Security Centre, which is a world leader in its field.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call shadow Minister Rachel Hopkins.

Rachel Hopkins: The Prime Minister says that he is serious about eradicating Russian influence from our country, yet his Government have sat on their hands for two years, with the majority of recommendations of the Russia report still yet to be implemented. On cyber security, the Russia report exposed the complete lack of accountability within and across Government Departments when it comes to cyber matters. New legislation has only made lines of responsibility more confusing. We are vulnerable. The National Cyber Security Centre has managed an unprecedented 777 cyber incidents over the last 12 months, up from 723 the previous year, with 40% aimed at the public sector. Either the Government are not taking the Russian cyber threat seriously, or the Minister does not have control of his own Department. Which is it?

Steve Barclay: There is consensus across the House on the need for a whole of society approach on cyber. On the charge that the Government have sat on their hands, the fact that we launched the cyber strategy before the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out shows that that is not correct. Looking at the spending review, there is a significant uplift in funding for the National Cyber Force, which I visited in the north-west. Councils such as Preston, which you will be familiar with, Mr Speaker, are heavily engaged in terms of the skills agenda for the NCF. A huge amount of work has been done on that.
In terms of the wider Opposition charge that the Government are sitting on their hands, one need only look at what President Zelensky has said about the Prime Minister’s response, the military support, the sanctions support, the bilateral aid––where the UK has been a leader––and the work to ramp up our response on refugees. If the Opposition are unhappy with what President Zelensky has said, then look at what the Russian Government have said about the way in which the Prime Minister has been at the front of the pack in ensuring a united western response.

Covid-19 Contracts

Neale Hanvey: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the need to ensure value for money in the award of covid-19 contracts.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Her Majesty’s Government’s priority throughout the pandemic has been to protect the lives and livelihoods of citizens across the United Kingdom. We have been clear from the outset that all contracts, including those designed to tackle coronavirus issues, must continue to achieve value for money for taxpayers and use good commercial judgment, and that the details of any awards made should be published in line with Government transparency guidelines.

Neale Hanvey: According to the National Audit Office investigation into the management of PPE contracts, billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is still at risk. Between March 2020 and October 2021, it cost £737 million to store excess PPE, and costs are currently £7 million per month. Over half the VIP suppliers provided PPE that the Department of Health and Social Care considers unsuitable for frontline services; in addition, some 1.5 billion items of PPE are currently in storage and expected to expire before they can be distributed. What is being done to understand the governance issues around this and the cost of that waste? How will that be reported to the House?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government were facing an emergency. PPE was needed immediately. It was obviously right to order more than was necessary—that was fundamental. At the beginning of the pandemic, nobody knew precisely how much would be needed, but we knew we needed supplies. The Government succeeded in getting domestic production, excluding gloves, up from 1% to 70%.[Official Report, 26 April 2022, Vol. 712, c. 7MC.]
The hon. Gentleman refers to 50% of suppliers having something faulty: all that means is that in a shipment that may have been of tonnes of PPE, one item was faulty. It does not mean that 50% of the items received were faulty. That is a fundamental error that people have been making in deliberately misunderstanding what the National Audit Office has said. Our duty was to get PPE in quickly. That was done properly, professionally and to the benefit of the nation.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call shadow Minister Rachel Hopkins.

Rachel Hopkins: The Minister talks about value for money, yet we know that the Government handed hundreds of millions of pounds of our money to an offshore company involving a Tory peer, created just days before and without any transparency, that sold Government PPE at three times the price it had bought it for. It is now in mediation because the PPE was not even fit for use. Millions of items are now stuck in storage, costing us even more.
The Government refuse even now to reveal what they know about the company in question, and our letters to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster go unanswered. Perhaps the Minister will answer this: when will we finally get the promised procurement Bill? What safeguards will be in it to stop yet more public money from being wasted and to end the so-called emergency bypassing of procurement regulations?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is a classic socialist point of view—that we should not have done anything to get PPE in urgently and, to go to the hon. Lady’s earlier question, that we should have just sat comfortably upon our hands and allowed PPE not to be provided around  the country. The Government got on with doing the job that was necessary, and of course they ensure value for money. Let anyone who has overcharged us be in no doubt: we are after them.

DWP Office Closures

Jeff Smith: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the planned closure of her Department’s offices.

Heather Wheeler: The Department for Work and Pensions locations plan is in line with the wider Government Places for Growth programme. That programme aims to deliver a more geographically diverse civil and public service that will better serve the public. The recent announcements will support the DWP’s delivery of a strategy that will, over the next 10 years, reshape how, where and when it delivers services. These closures are not part of a plan to reduce headcount.

Jeff Smith: The moving of 411 jobs from Chorlton in my constituency will have a serious impact on the district centre and the shops and services that they help sustain; undoubtedly, the same will apply to the other 40 offices in towns and suburbs across the country. How do those office closures contribute to the Government’s stated aim of spreading civil service jobs around the country and, indeed, to levelling up?

Heather Wheeler: People are being asked to move either three miles or eight miles away. They are having one-to-one bespoke meetings asking them how they would like to carry on working. As I say, all 411 jobs will be staying in the civil service because such important back-office jobs are needed. People are being asked to find where the best place is for them to work. If they want to carry on working in other civil service jobs in the area, they can transfer.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come once again to shadow Minister Rachel Hopkins.

Rachel Hopkins: I am on a roll, Mr Speaker. The last time I asked whether the Government are planning to sack hard-working civil servants, as the Minister for Government Efficiency has proposed, he sidestepped the question. Now we know why. The Government have since announced the closure of 41 DWP offices across the country, in the middle of an economic crisis and when their services are needed more than ever. All of the offices being closed entirely are outside London, and the vast majority are in the very areas that have been promised more investment. So much for levelling up.
Will the Minister now tell us just how many jobs are at risk? Will she guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies, and will she explain how this fits into the Government’s plan to reform the civil service?

Heather Wheeler: The hon. Lady asks a number of questions. Regarding the question asked by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), the landlord wants the property back and wants to redevelop the area, which will bring other jobs to the area. However, the  most important thing is, on these very important back-office jobs for these 411 people, that they are not looking at any reduction in headcount.

Contaminated Blood Products: Sir Robert Francis Report on Compensation for Those Affected

Philippa Whitford: When the Government plan to publish the report by Sir Robert Francis on compensation for those affected by contaminated blood products.

Michael Ellis: Sir Robert Francis delivered his report to me on 14 March, and I will carefully consider his findings and recommendations. It is my intention to publish the compensation framework study alongside the Government’s response as soon as possible, and in sufficient time for the infected blood inquiry and its core participants to consider them before Sir Robert gives evidence to the inquiry.

Philippa Whitford: In the five years since the UK Government finally agreed to hold a public inquiry, 90 victims of the contaminated blood disaster have died in Scotland alone, 27 of them just in the last year since Sir Robert Francis was asked to consider compensation mechanisms. The inquiry team and victim groups need sufficient time to look at his report, so does the Minister not recognise how disrespectful it is to the victims of this disaster to delay publishing the report and then announce the Government’s response and decision without hearing their views?

Michael Ellis: It is extremely important that all those who have suffered so terribly can get the answers that they have spent decades waiting for. The hon. Lady knows that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) who initiated this inquiry after 30 years of successive Governments not doing so, and it is Her Majesty’s Government who commissioned, proactively, the study that we are talking about this morning. What I have said is that I will consider the matter very carefully, and all due and appropriate considerations are being given to all of the factors that the hon. Lady has mentioned and to other factors, too. We will do that in sufficient time for the inquiry and its core participants to consider them before Sir Robert gives evidence.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is another NHS treatment disaster in the making, in that there may be 10,000 or more people who have suffered serious injury or even death as a result of adverse reactions to the covid-19 vaccinations? Will he give an assurance that those people will get justice immediately rather than have to wait for decades?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That is a very weak link. Sir Christopher is usually better than that. I think that is a poor effort from him. Let us move on to Kate Osamor.

Covid-19 Pandemic: Public Inquiry

Kate Osamor: For what reason the public inquiry into the covid-19 pandemic will not hold public evidence hearings until 2023.

Michael Ellis: The timing of the statutory inquiry’s various stages is, under the Inquiries Act 2005, a matter for its independent chair to determine.

Kate Osamor: Many bereaved families and campaigners are anxious to hear the truth about the Government’s handling of the pandemic in a public inquiry. Meanwhile, the Government have admitted that none of the Prime Minister’s mobile phone messages up until April 2021 will be accessible to the inquiry, because he got a new phone. In the light of that, will the Minister confirm a date when the public hearings will be formally established?

Michael Ellis: What the Government are doing is following the statutory provisions of the Inquiries Act 2005, which, as the hon. Lady will recall, was passed by a Labour Government. The Act says that it is up to the inquiry chair, in this case Baroness Heather Hallett. She is a leading figure and is dealing with the matter, and it will be for her to determine dates.

Fleur Anderson: I spoke to some of the bereaved families at the memorial march this week, and they are furious and devastated that the public hearings of the covid inquiry will not be starting in the spring, as promised; instead, it looks as though it will be spring next year. This inquiry cannot be compromised any further, so have the Government learned the lessons from the deletion of the WhatsApp messages, which would no doubt have been crucial evidence in this inquiry, and will they ensure that any pandemic-related messages from Ministers and former Ministers in WhatsApp or private email accounts are passed over and safely stored to prevent further unfortunate losses of evidence?

Michael Ellis: I do not accept the contention that there has been any loss of evidence. Baroness Hallett has confirmed that her investigation will begin once the terms of reference are finalised. It is logical that evidence has to be gathered before it can be heard, and she has said that she intends to gather evidence throughout this year, with public hearings beginning in 2023. She has made it clear that she will do everything in her power to deliver recommendations as soon as possible. We all want that.

British Industries

James Sunderland: What steps his Department is taking to promote British industries around the world.

Stephen Hammond: What steps his Department is taking to promote British industries around the world.

Nigel Adams: The GREAT campaign, for which the Cabinet Office has responsibility, showcases to the world all four corners of our nation and our thriving industries. Working with other Departments and arm’s length bodies, the GREAT campaign partners with the private sector to promote our industries internationally and encourage trade and investment with the UK. As of last year, GREAT had an average return-on-investment ratio, since its launch in 2011, of more than 15:1 to the UK economy.

James Sunderland: Bracknell lies at the heart of the silicon valley of the Thames valley, and we are very proud of our overseas businesses and British firms. Can the Minister confirm what we are doing to make sure that the sanctions against Russia do not negatively impact British businesses?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for businesses in Bracknell, and he makes a very good point. I reassure him and businesses all over the UK that the overall impact on the UK economy of sanctions will be limited. Some firms will be more exposed than others to Russian trade and financial market measures, but we have put in place mitigations to manage the impact on UK businesses and workers. We are also putting in place the appropriate licences to allow certain businesses to keep running and pay staff.

Stephen Hammond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that many UK companies believe it is difficult to access that help from UK non-governmental organisations. Can he reassure me that he is doing what he can to ensure that embassies, consulates and those bodies are getting the proper resources and are prioritised to help UK businesses win in global markets?

Nigel Adams: That is absolutely the case, and I know from my previous role at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that our missions around the world are home to some of our best salespeople. They are absolutely on message when it comes to promoting UK businesses and making sure that we are doing our best to stand up for businesses all around the world. They do a fantastic job, and we have plenty of programmes under way to ensure that that continues to be the case.

Small Business Bids for Government Contracts

Andrew Lewer: What steps the Government is taking to increase opportunities for small businesses to bid for Government contracts.

Neil Parish: What steps the Government is taking to increase opportunities for small businesses to bid for Government contracts.

Bob Blackman: What steps the Government is taking to increase opportunities for small businesses to bid for Government contracts.

Steve Barclay: We are increasing opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises by transparently publishing contract pipelines and simplifying bidding processes. These measures are working, and the latest central Government procurement figures for 2019-20 show that £15.5 billion was paid to small and medium-sized businesses to help to deliver essential services for UK taxpayers.

Andrew Lewer: Under policy procurement note 06/21, the new carbon reduction plan requirements are obligatory for any Government procurement of more than £5 million. That is especially onerous for SMEs, including those in  my constituency of Northampton South. How will Ministers try to make this more proportionate for SMEs, which have much less ability to afford such costly bureaucracy?

Steve Barclay: I am sure that the ears of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency will have pricked up at the suggestion of any regulation that is onerous and will want to look at that in detail. It is worth reminding the House that the £5 million figure applies per annum and that advice is available—only one plan is required and there are private sector organisations that provide advice and support, some of which is free. However, my hon. Friend raises an important point and I am sure my right hon. Friend will want to look at that to reassure himself and the House that it is proportionate to need.

Neil Parish: Both the report from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in April last year and the national food strategy, which came out last July, made recommendations to the Government on transforming public sector food procurement. While we still await the Government’s response to the food strategy, we will need shorter, more local supply chains, so that we can get great-quality, sustainable British food into the public sector. The south-west stands ready to be used as a pilot to test out a dynamic procurement system, but plans are stalling after funding from the Crown Commercial Service for the South West Food Hub was withdrawn. What can my right hon. Friend do to speed up the roll-out of the dynamic procurement model? Will he look again at supporting the South West Food Hub as a pilot, because it is doing great work?

Steve Barclay: I am extremely keen to work with my hon. Friend on this issue. He raises an important point and I am happy to meet him as a matter of urgency to take this forward. It is worth reminding the House that there was not specific funding for this; the memorandum of understanding with the South West Food Hub did not include specific funding. The CCS had been using its existing headcount and funding to establish a commercial solution for food, but the wider point he raises is a very valid one and I am extremely keen to explore it with him.

Bob Blackman: Small businesses experience frustration in getting on to the list of both local government and national Government contracts, so I welcome the light-touch approach that my right hon. Friend is taking. Will he assure me that taxpayers will also benefit from the transparency, so that everyone can see what contracts are being made, how much they are for and what the benefit is in the long term?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend raises an extremely valid and important point: simpler and more transparent processes, ones that are more accessible to the innovation of our small and medium-sized enterprises community, in turn drive far better value for money. As constituency MPs, we all see that, across the House, with our SMEs. This is very much at the heart of what the Minister for the Cabinet Office and colleagues are driving through with the procurement legislation that is planned, and it is exactly the point that we want to take forward.

Andrew Gwynne: Many moons ago, after the global financial crash, Tameside Council developed an initiative called “Tameside Works First”, which was a way of circumnavigating the then Official Journal of the European Union rules on public procurement and meant that the council could award far more contracts to local companies, massively benefiting those local companies. We do not have OJEU rules any more, so I would like to offer Tameside Works First to the Minister. Let us have a Britain Works First initiative and encourage local government and central Government to do more to award contracts to British companies.

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point. We have all seen in our communities that local businesses often have a pride in the service they give because it is within their locale and they know the local school, business or hospital involved. Their own workforce have an interaction with it, so it is not just about the quality of the service, but the pride in what they are delivering. That is not always reflected in simple tender prices that are bid. It is very much at the heart of the procurement legislation that we look at social value, for example, how many disabled employees a bidding company has. We need to consider that wider social value, looking at issues such as food miles and quality, not simply at the money that is bid. This is also part of having a more transparent, accessible and simple process that enables SMEs such as the ones to which he alludes to take part in those contracts.

Jim Shannon: In my Strangford constituency and across Northern Ireland, we have large numbers of small and medium-sized businesses, with excellent people and entrepreneurs with talent and ability. What can be done to enable such businesses in Northern Ireland to obtain Government contracts and reinforce the fact that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is always better together?

Steve Barclay: I absolutely concur that we are better together as the United Kingdom. The ability shown in the pandemic to act across the United Kingdom, including through the firepower of Her Majesty’s Treasury in respect of schemes such as furlough, has amply demonstrated that.
On the hon. Gentleman’s more specific point, one material thing that can be done is on the visibility of the pipeline of available contracts. There is around £250 billion-worth of public procurement and around £50 billion-worth of central Government public procurement, and I am extremely keen that SMEs in Northern Ireland are able to get visibility of that pipeline, so that we can tap into the talent and entrepreneurial spirit of which the hon. Gentleman speaks.

Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform

Chris Stephens: What progress his Department has made on reducing red tape since the UK’s departure from the EU.

Theresa Villiers: What progress he has made on implementing the recommendations of the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform report published on 16 June 2021.

Peter Aldous: What steps his Department is taking to promote growth and innovation following the UK’s departure from the EU.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We will bring forward a Brexit freedoms Bill to end the special status of retained EU law. It will accompany a major drive to reform, repeal and replace retained EU law, thereby cutting at least £1 billion-worth of red tape for UK businesses. The Government’s “The Benefits of Brexit” paper reinforced Departments’ commitments in response to TIGRR, and Departments are pushing ahead in delivering the recommendations in its report.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Chris Stephens. Not here.

Theresa Villiers: Will the Government make progress on the TIGRR recommendation to replace the EU clinical trials directive with a new modern framework to ensure that people can access life-saving treatments quickly and that our world-leading medical research sector can thrive?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank my right hon. Friend for her terrific work on the TIGRR report to provide so many ideas for the Government. I assure her that I am working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who was also involved in the TIGRR report and now has ministerial responsibility in many of the medical-related areas. The consultation on the proposals to reform UK legislation on clinical trials to protect the interests of participants while providing a more streamlined and flexible regime to make it easier and faster to run trials closed on 14 March 2022. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is analysing the more than 2,000 responses that were received and preparing the Government response. There is great urgency behind this work.

Peter Aldous: Coastal areas have their own unique set of challenges and opportunities. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend outlined the Government’s cross-departmental strategy to promote growth and innovation in areas such as Waveney. In particular, will he set out the Government’s proposed replacement for assisted area status, from which Lowestoft benefited?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is a particular champion for coastal communities—especially for Waveney—and has been since we entered Parliament together in 2010. East Suffolk Council is working with local businesses and the community on its £24.9 million town deal for Lowestoft. We are no longer bound by burdensome EU state aid rules, so assisted area status will be replaced by new a subsidy control regime. The Subsidy Control Bill, which was introduced to Parliament in June 2021, provides the framework for the new UK-wide regime. It is back under our control and, under the Subsidy Control Bill, we will have a new system. Through the new regime, public authorities throughout the United Kingdom will be able to award bespoke subsidies that are tailored to local needs.

Peter Grant: The Minister just claimed that the Government are cutting £1 billion-worth of red tape as a result of Brexit, but the Commons  Public Accounts Committee, which has a majority of Conservative MPs, says that Brexit red tape is costing businesses £5 billion per year. Does the Minister accept that finding?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is joining thousands of readers of the Sun and of the Sunday Express in pointing out ways in which we can cut red tape further. There is more joy in heaven over the one sinner who repenteth than over the 99 who remain pure.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Brendan O'Hara: The Financial Times has reported that the checks on food imports that were due to be introduced in July will be delayed yet again. In the middle of a Tory cost of living crisis and a period of food insecurity that may have short-term benefits, but, as the British Veterinary Association has highlighted, it is not sustainable, and it serves only to highlight the absurd claim that Brexit would reduce red tape. What possible Brexit opportunity can the Minister identify from delaying these checks yet again, because of the extreme harm they would have caused, and what long-term solutions are the Government exploring?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The SNP once again wants to be ruled by the European Union. This is the most extraordinary claim from a party that wants to be independent. It wants to be independent for one minute, and then it says to our friends in Brussels, “You take over because we are not able to do it for ourselves; we are too weak, feeble and frail to be able to stand on our own two feet, so we’ve got to get somebody else to do it.” The great advantage of being out is that it is up to us. We have the single trade window coming forward, which will be world-beating, and potentially one of the best systems anywhere, cutting out bureaucracy not just for people with whom we are trading in the European Union, but globally, because we in the Conservative party have a global horizon, rather than this narrow Brussels-based horizon of the Scottish nationalists.

Brendan O'Hara: I will attempt to pick the bones out of that one when I read Hansard. Hearing of Brexit opportunities reminds me of that classic comedy, “Abbott and Costello in the Foreign Legion” when Bud and Lou get lost in the desert and come across an ice cream parlour that everybody knows to be a mirage except them, and that is exactly what this is—a mirage. Many of our performers are now having to rely on the charity, Help Musicians, for a £5,000 grant so that they can afford to take their performances to Europe. Why do our performers now require charitable help, and what happened to that promised post-Brexit bonfire of red tape?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In 1661—[Interruption.] I am not with Abbott and Costello; there is a much better Carry On where they are in the desert and Kenneth Williams is leading them in the Foreign Legion. Let us go back to 1661. In 1661, outside in Old Palace Yard, the public executioner took all the Acts that were passed by the illegitimate Cromwellian Parliament and burned them. I have to say that I would like to do something similar to what was done between 1972 and our departing from the European Union. We are building up the kindling wood thanks to the readers of The Sun who are sending in their brilliant suggestions.

Memorial for Victims of Transatlantic Slave Trade  and Slavery

Wera Hobhouse: What assessment he has made of the potential merits of erecting a memorial for victims of the transatlantic slave trade and slavery.

Steve Barclay: There is no disputing the horrors of what occurred during the slave trade, which is why we commemorate the annual International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition on 23 August.

Wera Hobhouse: A number of my constituents are part of the Memorial 2007 project, which is a campaign to set up a memorial for the millions of Africans enslaved in the transatlantic trade. The right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor promised that he would meet me and the campaigners, but then the schedule did not allow that to happen. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now commit to meet me and the campaigners of the project?

Steve Barclay: One reason why the UK Government were engaged with the UN memorial in New York was to ensure that the suffering and trauma inflicted as a result of the slave do not happen again, so we contributed to the memorial there. Even as a constituency MP, I think of Thomas Clarkson. There are already memorials of the leading figures in the campaign against slavery, including of Thomas Clarkson who should be remembered alongside Wilberforce. I will ensure that somebody from the Cabinet Office meets the hon. Lady to discuss anything further that we can do.

Cyber Security Strategy

Steven Baker: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reduce cyber crime through the Government Cyber Security Strategy.

Steve Barclay: The Government’s cyber security strategy will strengthen the public sector’s cyber resilience, making it harder for malicious actors, including cyber criminals, to disrupt Government functions. Building organisational cyber resilience and introducing measures to enable Government to defend as one will ensure that the Government present an increasingly hard target.

Steven Baker: Will my right hon. Friend please consider a report by the Royal United Services Institute entitled, “The Silent Threat”, which calls for fraud to be made a national security priority, so that the full machinery of the state can be brought to bear on criminals often based overseas?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, and it is one that Cabinet colleagues are looking at, not only in the context of covid fraud and issues such as bounce back loans, but, as he rightly says, in light of the RUSI report and its recommendations. We are discussing with the Home Office and industry stakeholders how we can best commit to ensuring that all possible action is taken to address the risks from fraud that he identifies.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to topicals, where I suggest there are a lot of free hits, as we have quite a little bit of time.

Topical Questions

James Sunderland: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Steve Barclay: This month we appointed Baroness Gisela Stuart, who is well known to the House, as the new civil service commissioner to oversee the body guaranteeing that civil servants are selected on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition. Baroness Stuart brings a wealth of experience, having been a Member of this House for 20 years and a Government Minister for the Labour party, and brings a non-partisan spirit to roles including her time at the University of Birmingham, the Royal Mint and as a non-executive director of the Cabinet Office. We have also been working on taking forward the Prime Minister’s work on Brexit opportunities; my right hon. Friend the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency has identified almost 2,000 EU regulations remaining in British laws, which he is reviewing in order to reduce the burdens on business and the public. I have also written to Departments across Whitehall to ensure that we make the necessary regulatory changes to ease the burden of the cost of living, and will have further meetings with colleagues to take that work forward.

James Sunderland: Events in Ukraine prove that the international rules-based order continues to be threatened by aggression and competition. What is being done to increase and improve the UK’s strategic independence and self-sufficiency for its needs?

Steve Barclay: That is an extremely important point in terms of both our energy security and our wider commitments building on COP26 and net zero. That is why the Prime Minister, the Trade Secretary and I hosted a number of Australian investors, who collectively have committed £25 billion of inward investment in green technology to the UK, at No. 10 Downing Street last night. That is both an indication of our commitment to energy security and to ensuring that we learn the lessons of Russia and Ukraine, and a signal of the attractiveness of the UK for foreign investment, which reflects this Government’s commitment to supporting business and levelling up across the UK.

Fleur Anderson: Contrary to the Prime Minister’s own promises last year, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has quietly shelved any attempt to limit MPs’ second jobs. He claims it is impractical. Since I was elected two years ago, I have received more than 1,500 emails a month, sent nearly 40,000 emails back to my constituents, spoken in this Chamber more than 380 times and tabled more than 500 questions. For me, what would be impractical is having a second job in the first place. However, more than a quarter of Conservative Members have second jobs, and I do not think many are NHS workers. That brings them an extra £4.4 million a year in extra earnings—so, colleagues, the post-Adjournment party drinks are on the Conservatives. I will ask a question being asked across the country: is it impractical finally to stop the second jobs bonanza, or is it simply inconvenient?

Steve Barclay: It is slightly odd simply to say it is the Government side of the House. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who have had second jobs, including with the NHS and in a range of public services; but equally, working with business is important as is ensuring that the House is aware of how we generate the prosperity to level up across the community and building on that £25 billion investment that we were discussing a moment ago. Perhaps she can enlighten the House on whether writing a book is a valid use of someone’s time, or indeed chairing a panel on “Have I Got News For You”, as one of her colleagues did recently, and on the distinction between that and working in areas that contribute tax and contribute to the country at large?

Fleur Anderson: The Chancellor has asked businesses to think very carefully about any investments that would in any sense support Putin and his regime. However, this is pretty hypocritical given that he and his family are still making millions from Infosys, a company still trading out of Moscow. We need to be united in our opposition to Putin. It cannot be one rule for us and another for the Tory elite.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We cannot use the word “hypocritical”.

Fleur Anderson: I am so sorry.

Lindsay Hoyle: Just withdraw it and that would be great.

Fleur Anderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker; I withdraw it.
But I would like to ask if there will be an investigation, or there has been an investigation, into whether the ministerial code has been broken in this instance and what action will be taken given the Chancellor’s failure to declare his family’s huge shareholdings in this company.

Steve Barclay: I am not going to engage with sweeping comments that do not address the record of this Government, which is very clear in respect of Russia and Ukraine. This Government have led in their actions on sanctions, in their investment in bilateral aid, and in their response to military support in-country. That is reflected in the response both of the Ukrainian Government and of the Russian Government. In respect of the ministerial code, Lord Geidt addresses those issues in the usual way.

Shaun Bailey: Local government procurement is an important part of ensuring that we get vital services to the most vulnerable in our communities. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the disgraceful procurement practices at Labour-led Sandwell Council, which has seen contracts handed to mates, dodgy land deals, and finally commissioners bashing down the doors to deal with these problems. Can he assure the House that as part of his reforms to local government procurement, he will prioritise value for money, and, more importantly for my constituents in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton, prove to them that the actions of Sandwell Council are not the norm?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. It would be great to hear voices from the Labour Benches showing their commitment to tackling these issues. I can reassure him as to the Government’s support on the issue that he raises, and he is right to bring it to the attention of the House.

Afzal Khan: This week I joined grieving families like mine to mark the anniversary of the covid memorial wall. On the same day, we watched in shock as the Met police issued 20 fines for the Downing Street parties. Right now, the chair of the UK inquiry is meeting the bereaved families on the terms of reference of the inquiry, and soon the chair will pass draft terms to the Prime Minister. Given the importance of this inquiry, will the Minister confirm that the draft terms will be published in full to guarantee that the chair’s recommendations are implemented?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. It is a deeply emotive point for the families affected. That is why we are committed to getting the terms of reference right. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office set out, this is shaped by the judge Lord Hallett and comes under the terms of the legislation passed by a previous Labour Administration. I know that Lord Hallett is committed to working with stakeholder bodies as regards reflecting the terms of reference in a way that meets the wider need.

Damian Collins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the House moves after the Easter recess to legislate through the online safety Bill, there must be effective co-ordination on disinformation between the counter-disinformation unit and the RESIST programme at the Cabinet Office, as well as Ofcom, as the online safety regulator, to make sure that social media companies take proactive action against known threats to this country, including the online frauds and scams mentioned earlier?

Steve Barclay: That is an extremely important point. Both the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I have chaired a number of Cabinet Sub-Committees looking at our wider domestic resilience and our response in the context of the conflict in Ukraine. It builds on the national cyber strategy launched before Christmas and the Government cyber strategy launched after Christmas. It is about working with relevant stakeholders to have a whole-of-society approach, whether that is in relation to the excellent communication from the Ministry of Defence in recent weeks in de-classifying key documentation around some of the Russian misinformation campaigns, or looking at the wider piece: getting in the right skills, the right training and the right product regulation so that we have that whole-of-society resilient approach, building on work through the situations centre and the Civil Contingencies Secretariat.

Alison Thewliss: The Radisson RED, a hotel in my constituency, was promised full compensation by the UK Government for business disruption during COP26, but it has not received the full compensation it believes it was entitled to. It has  been passed from pillar to post by the COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), who committed in this House to meet me, but never did, and the Cabinet Office, which has been ignoring its emails. Can the Minister tell me how many other businesses in Glasgow have been similarly treated by the Cabinet Office? Will he meet me on this, because it has taken the shine off events that Glasgow was very proud to host?

Steve Barclay: I know that the COP26 President will have a strong commitment to addressing any issues. Rightly, Members across the House have recognised that the event in Glasgow was a great demonstration of the UK working together. It was an illustration of how we are better together. If there are some specific issues that Members of the House are rightly highlighting from a constituency perspective, I will ensure those are brought to the attention of the COP26 President and ask whether he will meet her as a matter of priority.

Greg Smith: The news that there will be legislation to ensure that we maximise the benefits of Brexit is incredibly welcome. Will my right hon. Friend comment on how that legislation, will enable and set free those companies in the thriving tech sector across my constituency of Buckingham to innovate in a more free manner than when we were in the EU?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important question. The Brexit freedoms Bill will modernise the UK’s approach to making regulations by enabling Her Majesty’s Government effectively to amend, repeal or replace any retained EU law. These reforms will help cut business costs by removing EU red tape and creating a UK-centric regulatory framework that encourages competition, innovation and growth. The Bill will also help accelerate the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) to deliver the recommendations from the taskforce for innovation, growth and regulatory reform in the fields of technology and life sciences.

Andrew Gwynne: Earlier, the Minister for Brexit Opportunities decried an Act of Parliament from 1972. There was a further Act of Parliament that year that also changed the face of England and Wales: the Local Government Act 1972. Much of that made sense for the delivery of public services, but the lords lieutenant have no role in local government. They are Her Majesty’s representatives in a county, and as a patron of the Friends of Real Lancashire, I can say that much damage was done to historic Lancashire. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster look at restoring the lords lieutenant to cover the historic counties for ceremonial purposes, so that the Duke of Lancaster’s representative can cover all the Duke of Lancaster’s county palatine, from the Mersey to the Furness fells, and from the Irish sea to the Pennines?

Steve Barclay: I fear it is not just me who has to declare an interest in this—Mr Speaker himself may have to declare an interest. Any question that starts with reinforcing the county of Lancashire is extremely  welcome. Before the hon. Gentleman’s siren call draws me on to the rocks of constitutional propriety, I would want to take advice as to what the interaction is with the Palace and other quarters that may have a view on this. I take this moment—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree—to pay tribute to the incredible work that the lords lieutenant do up and down the country. They are at the heart of so much civic activity within our constituencies and make a hugely valuable contribution through their work.

David Duguid: Will the Veterans Minister join me in thanking the Department for Work and Pensions and other Government services that help veterans find work when they leave the armed forces? Will he consider visiting some of those services and the many veterans support charities in a visit to my constituency? Finally, will he also join me in thanking those veterans in Banff and Buchan and across the country who have been donating clothing and other supplies to those fighting for their lives in Ukraine?

Leo Docherty: Veterans make brilliant employees, which is why employment is at the heart of our veterans strategy. It is also why we have introduced national insurance contribution holidays for those who employ veterans and a guaranteed job interview for veterans who want to join the civil service. Of course, I join my hon. Friend in thanking the veterans in his constituency who have so generously contributed to our collective effort on behalf of Ukraine. I also thank him for the work he does in concert with his veteran community in Banff and Buchan. If time allows, I would be delighted to visit his very beautiful constituency.

Lindsay Hoyle: The House of Commons has signed the covenant, and the House of Commons Service is open to veterans.

Peter Grant: Every one of the  65 million or so people in these four nations who has a mobile phone, tablet, iPad or Alexa-enabled device is a potential target for hostile nations seeking to damage our cyber-security, but the National Cyber Force budget amounts to 10p a month for each of those citizens. What representations has the Minister made to the Chancellor to raise that budget to a more reasonable level?

Steve Barclay: I have some exposure to this, having been Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Of all the budgets, the agencies’ budgets have increased more than most, if not the most. Significant funding has been put into the National Cyber Force as part of the cyber corridor in the north-west. There are sometimes limits to how much detail one gives on some of those budgets, but I am happy to interact with the Intelligence and Security Committee to provide any reassurance the House needs that significant funding is being provided on our resilience and our national cyber-response. That builds on a number of points raised this morning, including our work on the skills needed as part of that resilience and the situation centre in which we have invested.

Giles Watling: We have exited the EU and regained control, but I fear we have lost a lot in trade and unity in these isles. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should explore new avenues of trade, and perhaps reinvigorate lost avenues of trade, such as through the Commonwealth?

Steve Barclay: I concur with my hon. Friend that the Commonwealth is of huge importance. He is right to highlight that, but it fits within the wider strategy of the integrated review as part of global Britain, including building on defence ties such as with the Australian and US Governments through AUKUS. This brings significant defence opportunities, as well as opportunities for Treasury policy such as freeports and for our wider work through the Department for International Trade on free trade agreements. This is all part of global Britain, of which the Commonwealth is a key stakeholder.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call James Shannon.

Jim Shannon: My mother calls me James or Jim, so you can choose, Mr Speaker.
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for all his answers. On the recent fears of Russian cyber-attack, what contact and security support is there for our banking sector? What financial help or assistance can be offered to keep our institutions free from Russian cyber attack?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have rightly highlighted the importance of our cyber resilience in general and at this time. There is a host of excellent advice in the whole-of-Government approach set out in our national cyber strategy launched before Christmas. I specifically draw the House’s attention to the advice from the National Cyber Security Centre, which hon. Members can reinforce through their weekly columns and interaction with businesses in their constituency. The NCSC is a great repository of advice on how to take action on cyber resilience.

Richard Holden: In the light of the benefits of their pension schemes to public sector workers of all ages, can my right hon. Friend offer support for the idea of expanding pension auto-enrolment to workers of all ages in the private sector so that they can begin building a pension in the same way as their counterparts in the public sector?

Heather Wheeler: Our ambition remains to enable people to save more and to start saving earlier by taking forward the core recommendations of the Department for Work and Pensions 2017 review of automatic enrolment, which the Government committed to implement in the mid-2020s subject to engagement with stakeholders and finding ways to make the changes affordable.

Desmond Swayne: Notwithstanding the earlier exchange, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will want to acknowledge my gratitude and satisfaction at the excellent job that he is making of his second job as a Minister of the Crown, will he not?

Steve Barclay: I simply pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. For a question of that sort, I think brevity is the best response in acknowledging the point that he raises.

Neil Parish: I thought I would take advantage of an extra question. With our trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which are to be welcomed, we will need to make a great drive to send food and drink across the world. Can we have more enthusiasm from the Government to drive our exports, especially food and drink?

Nigel Adams: It is crucial that we do exactly what the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee says. The Cabinet Office works closely with DEFRA on our great campaign to promote food around the world and we do that through our trade commissioners and the great teams that we have in post. One example is that we worked closely with DEFRA to promote Scottish seafood in China, which contributed an immediate £1.5 million in export wins.

Christopher Chope: May I ask the Minister for Brexit Opportunities whether he believes that we can maximise our opportunities as long as article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol remains in place?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant and inspired question. There are obviously difficulties with the Northern Ireland protocol, which was set out in the agreement to be amendable, changeable and alterable, and that must be done. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is working on that and it is important to get it right, because nothing must undermine the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a single entity. That is the Government’s policy, that is the Government’s aim and that is what will happen.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is the end of Cabinet Office questions. We now come to the urgent questions, as no statements were forthcoming.

Rape as a Weapon of War in Ukraine

Anthony Mangnall: (Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on Ukraine with particular reference to the use of rape as a weapon of war.

Vicky Ford: On 24 February, Russia launched a premeditated and wholly unprovoked invasion into Ukraine. Since then, we have been horrified by reports of rape and sexual violence committed by Russian armed forces in Ukraine. We have been clear that Russia’s barbaric acts must be investigated and those responsible held to account. Let us be clear: indiscriminate attacks against innocent civilians amount to war crimes for which the Putin regime must be held accountable.
That is why the Government worked with partners to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court, to establish a commission of inquiry through the UN Human Rights Council with the support of Ukraine, and to establish an Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission of experts. We brought allies together to expedite an ICC investigation into the situation in Ukraine through state party referral. With 37 countries joining the UK, it was the largest referral in the ICC’s history. The international community is isolating Putin on the world stage.
It is vital that the ICC is able to carry out that investigation, which is why the UK will provide military, policing and financial support to help to uncover evidence of such crimes and ultimately seek justice. On 24 March, we announced an additional £1 million of funding for the ICC to help to uncover evidence of war crimes and we are providing UK experts to support the investigation.
Sadly, rape in war is not new. Before the war started in Ukraine, the Foreign Secretary committed the UK to do more to tackle sexual violence in conflict, including, but not limited to, its use as a method of warfare. We are working with countries and international partners to strengthen the international response. All options are on the table, including a new international convention that would help to hold perpetrators to account.
The UK continues to act decisively with its allies to punish the Putin regime for its unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, and we will do all we can to bring the perpetrators of war crimes, including sexual violence, to justice.

Anthony Mangnall: It is a tragic reality that, in conflicts and crises around the world, rape and sexual violence have become weapons of war. They are the tools of the vicious and the violent, and the consequences have such long and far-reaching impacts on the individuals, their families and their communities. It is happening in Tigray, in Myanmar, in Iraq, and now it is happening in Ukraine. Since the start of the conflict in Ukraine, there have been widespread reports of Russian troops resorting to rape and sexual violence against women and girls.
Just two weeks ago, this House and the Prime Minister welcomed four Ukrainian Members of Parliament to Westminster and to No. 10. They highlighted the fact that Putin
“has changed his strategy to target the most vulnerable groups of women and children”.
They went on to report that women were being raped and executed, and those who were not executed were killing themselves.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative as well as the Conservative Friends of International Development. The UK’s action and leadership on this subject matters and has proven to be world leading. However, we must have more steps taken now in relation to Ukraine.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) raised this issue in the Liaison Committee. She asked the Prime Minister whether we had deployed our PSVI team to support survivors and victims of sexual violence into Ukraine or the surrounding areas. The Prime Minister said that we had. Can the Minister please confirm that, and provide details to the House of how many we have supplied to the area and whether we will provide more?
It is particularly welcome to see the appointment of Sir Howard Morrison QC as the independent adviser to the Ukrainian prosecutor. Can the Minister confirm that all crimes of sexual violence will be documented and prosecuted, and where this will take place?
Many of us who support the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative have been calling for a new independent international body to investigate sexual violence in conflict wherever it takes place, as a body that will support survivors, document crimes and, working with local courts, prosecute perpetrators. Does the Minister accept that that is needed now—not in six months, not in 12 months, but now—with our global leadership and our determination?
Finally, the PSVI and gender-based violence need a long-term strategy, with full and transparent funding formulas. Ukraine is unfortunately, as I have said, on a long list of countries where rape and gender-based violence is perpetrated without fear of justice. We must end the culture of impunity, and the Government must act now on behalf of the people of Ukraine.

Vicky Ford: I thank my hon. Friend for this question, and for pointing out the incredible importance of our work on preventing sexual violence in conflict. Indeed, the UK is a world leader on this issue. The UK has committed over £50 million since the launch of the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative in 2012. We have funded more than 85 projects in 29 countries to respond to conflict-related sexual violence. We have trained 17,000 police and military personnel, and deployed UK experts over 90 times since 2012. That has helped to build the capacity of the UN and non-governmental organisations in countries such as Ethiopia, Mali, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Uganda.
It is incredibly important that women—it can be men as well as women—who have suffered sexual violence are supported. As hon. Members know, we have put considerable funding into the humanitarian situation in both Ukraine and neighbouring countries. We are supporting internal efforts to investigate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Ukraine, including the ICC investigation, as I have said. On 4 March, the Metropolitan police operationalised its war crimes division. That is helping to collect evidence  from those who have come to the UK, which will support the ICC. Our energy and assistance resources are targeted on supporting the work of the ICC on war crimes, rather than trying to build a new tribunal, because that could take many years, but other countries are doing things similar to the Met police’s operations.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for this hugely important urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. As ever, Labour Members stand absolutely with the people of Ukraine, including all the women and girls of Ukraine who are suffering horrendously in this conflict started by Putin. This war of aggression has had a terrible toll on civilians across the country.
We know that, throughout history, rape and sexual violence have been used by aggressors to punish, terrorise and destroy populations, from the rape of women during the 1937 Nanking occupation to the estimated 200,000 women subjected to rape during the fight for independence in Bangladesh. We have also seen victims of sexual violence in Bosnia and, more recently, as I have raised with the Minister, in Tigray and Myanmar. It is because of those heinous examples, and countless others, that rape and sexual violence have had to be explicitly prohibited under international humanitarian law and the Geneva conventions. As war ravages Europe once again, the grim reality is that we hear horrific reports of rape and sexual violence being used as weapons of war once more.
This week, one Ukrainian woman told The Times that she was raped on multiple occasions by Russian soldiers in her family home after they murdered her husband and while her four-year-old son was in tears nearby. That is utterly horrific and heinous. As the hon. Member said, we have also heard direct testimonies in the House. We were told:
“We have reports of women gang-raped. These women are usually the ones who are unable to get out. We are talking about senior citizens. Most of these women have either been executed after the crime of rape or they have taken their own lives.”
Every part of the House will condemn those appalling crimes, but condemnation is not enough. We need accountability and justice must be done. Putin and his cronies, and all those breaking international laws of war in his name, must face the full force of the law for the crimes and atrocities that they are, no doubt, committing.
The Minister made a number of important points, but will she set out clearly the steps that the Government are taking, crucially to gain the evidence to document these incidents? She mentioned the role of the Metropolitan police and other initiatives. What are we learning from past examples, particularly in the Balkans and elsewhere, about what we can do to ensure that evidence is collected and collated so that people can be brought to justice? How are we working with human rights organisations and others? What is her assessment of access for such organisations? Will she back Labour’s call for a special tribunal so that all war crimes, including the crime of aggression, can be prosecuted? Will she explain the detail of how humanitarian aid is being used in particular to support women in crossing the borders?
We have heard concerning reports about cuts to health and conflict in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which are crucial areas that affect the situation for women and girls. Will she assure us that they will not take place? Labour will always support what it takes to protect victims of sexual violence in Britain and Ukraine and across the world.

Vicky Ford: I thank the hon. Member for his support for women and girls. I, too, read the truly harrowing story of Natalya in the papers. It was so brave of her to come forward and tell the world that story. Indeed, the women who come forward to give their testimonies about the sexual violence that they have faced in conflict are incredibly brave. Recently, women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo came forward to give testimony that led to a conviction at the international court of a senior military leader for war crimes, including sexual violence. That was a true moment to show that we can—and will—hold these people to account.
The Government are supporting the ICC investigation. As I said, the UK was a leader in getting that set up and we have given it £1 million of funding to allow efforts to get started. Indeed, Karim Khan, who is the leader of the investigation and is from the UK, recently visited Ukraine. We are working with humanitarian organisations. In fact, just this week I met the head of the Charity Commission to discuss safeguarding issues and to remind UK charities on the ground about the risk of safeguarding concerns, including trafficking, child trafficking and so on. We will support the efforts of the ICC rather than trying to build an entirely new tribunal from scratch. That process could take many years, so we believe that it is best to ensure that it works through the ICC, which is why we are funding it.
We have not deployed to Ukraine at the moment, but we stand ready to do so if that becomes appropriate.

Harriett Baldwin: I commend the Minister and the Foreign Secretaries over the past decade on their international leadership on this important issue. Should Vlad Putin the invader decide to travel overseas to the G20 later this year, will she confirm that he will be arrested on the spot as a war criminal?

Vicky Ford: My hon. Friend asks, “Is Putin a war criminal?” There is very strong evidence that war crimes have been committed by the Russian armed forces in Ukraine. It will be for the ICC prosecutor to identify the individuals who may have committed those crimes. That is why we are supporting the work of the ICC prosecutor in every way that we can.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson, Alyn Smith.

Alyn Smith: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this urgent question on a very difficult but very important subject. It is vital that we take due note of what is going on in Ukraine. We can all agree that rape as a weapon of war is beyond despicable. I will focus my remarks on urging the Government to take action on only three points, because much has been said that I agree with.
SNP Members have called for a specific atrocity prevention strategy. Work is under way across the FCDO on these issues, but we think that bringing that into a coherent atrocity prevention strategy would be helpful in not only holding the Government to account on what is being done, but urging more action on that.
On accountability, I agree with the Government’s approach of supporting the ICC, rather than creating new structures. That is proportionate and the best way to do it. I was glad to hear about the funding, but as we have seen from Syria, we can have all the evidence that we like, but if there is not the political will to carry it through, we will not see the necessary accountability on the ground and the fear of justice to end the culture of impunity that we are hearing reports of from Ukraine. I urge the Government to do more on that and to publish as one document the efforts that are being made to help accountability mechanisms in Ukraine, because that would again help the coherence and strategy to be clear to us all.
I echo the points about people trafficking and safeguarding, on which I know the Minister has been very active. However, perhaps we can have a specific statement on the risk of trafficking of vulnerable refugees and what the UK and other partners have done to help and assist. I am aware that the German police have been doing very useful work on that, but, sadly, a lot more work needs to be done.

Vicky Ford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his care and concern on this really dreadful issue. His last point was about the risk of people trafficking and other safeguarding issues and that is precisely why I met the head of the Charity Commission this week. We want to ensure that we are getting the alert out to charities on the ground about the risk of infiltration by people who they would not want in their organisations—let me put it like that. It is a very serious risk. That is one of the reasons we encourage the British people, if they want to contribute, to do so through the Disasters Emergency Committee.
How do we try to change the dial on this issue? The hon. Gentleman is right that more needs to be done. That is precisely why, at the end of last year, the Foreign Secretary said that we need to look at a new international agreement or convention on dealing with sexual violence in conflict. There is no single treaty that is dedicated to conflict-related sexual violence, and we believe that consolidating all the legal obligations could help to prevent that and to ensure that SV is seen as an early warning sign. We think that having a new international agreement or convention would have a symbolic and practical value, because it could help to increase the prevention of conflict-related sexual violence, strengthen states’ commitment to supporting survivors and, importantly, improve the mechanisms to hold perpetrators to account. It will take time. We are not going for quick political wins; we are working with experts internally and internationally towards a new UN General Assembly resolution to set up a convention on the process.

James Sunderland: The Minister will know that there are three components of fighting power: physical, conceptual and moral. Does she agree that any violations of the Geneva convention in Ukraine are likely to galvanise the Ukrainian forces to become an even more formidable adversary, and galvanise the  ICC, the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other agencies to generate the necessary evidence for future prosecutions?

Vicky Ford: I completely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. Furthermore, he used exactly the right word to describe the Ukrainian people: formidable. I would add brave, caring and just absolutely unbelievable. I do not think that there is a single person in this House who does not have huge admiration for what Ukraine is doing to support its own people.

Anna McMorrin: Lesia Vasylenko, an incredibly brave Ukrainian MP and mother of three, spoke recently of women being raped and hanged, some in front of their very young children. Putin has changed his strategy to target the most vulnerable groups in this illegal and unethical war. It is always women and girls who pay the highest price. They are being targeted and raped and having their own bodies used against them as we speak. What will the Minister do differently now to prevent more unimaginable suffering for women and girls and ensure the safe passage of humanitarian aid into the country?

Vicky Ford: I thank the hon. Member for her deep concern for women in war. It is the most vulnerable who suffer the most, and that is very often women. We have also heard reports of forcibly removing citizens from the country, which would be a violation of international human rights law.
We have led the efforts to launch the ICC investigation, the commission of inquiry and the OSCE investigation. The Deputy Prime Minister has chaired a meeting of 38 Governments in The Hague to ensure that international efforts, including on evidence collection, are co-ordinated. As I said, the Metropolitan police have operationalised their war crimes team to ensure that it can collect evidence from the brave women who would like to give it, so that we can hold the perpetrators to account. It is so important to show that we can hold people to account, because that is the way that we can try to prevent this hideous crime from continuing.

Gareth Davies: I thank the Minister and especially the Foreign Secretary, who I know has made the matter a priority. However, given the woeful levels of prosecution, there is clearly an issue with the collection and recording of evidence in the existing system. That is why Lord Hague of Richmond, the former Foreign Secretary, has called for an international, permanent long-term body to collect and record crimes around the world. Can the Minister tell us whether she has at least had any conversations with her counterparts about establishing that permanent body?

Vicky Ford: We are working through the ICC, because we believe that that is the best way to take people to court for war crimes. Setting up a new body could take many years. We have seen from the experience in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that the ICC can be effective in holding people to be account, but it is incredibly important that the evidence is gathered, which is why we are funding it now and supporting other organisations. However, we believe that a new convention or a new international agreement is needed. That is one of our key priorities for this year; it was a key priority for this year even before this hideous war started. The  tragedy is that in wars across the world these awful crimes happen, which include the terrible situation for the women of Tigray.

Layla Moran: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on bringing this deeply emotional question to the House. The use of rape as a weapon of war is reprehensible, it is repugnant, and it has no place anywhere in the world.
The Minister was right in saying that we are starting, through sanctions, to isolate Putin and his cronies, but I find it deeply disturbing that although we have imposed some sanctions, there are still gaping holes, especially in respect of golden visas. A question from my noble Friend Baron Jones of Cheltenham revealed that we had given golden visas to eight people. That is an embarrassment. It is disgusting in itself, and it prompts us to ask how many more people used Putin’s blood money to buy their way into this country. Will the Minister have a word with the Home Office, and the Home Secretary in particular, to speed along the review of golden visas so we can ensure that none of this money has been used—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sorry, but we are shortly to have another urgent question on visas. This urgent question is about rape and the use of women in war. The hon. Lady might be getting the two mixed up, and it would be more appropriate for her to raise that issue following the next urgent question. However, I invite the Minister to try to deal with the question that she has asked.

Vicky Ford: We are implementing the strongest set of economic sanctions ever imposed to debilitate the Russian economy and degrade funding for Putin’s war machine, because this war has to stop, and the rape and violence against women has to stop.

Tony Lloyd: There is absolutely no doubt that the rape of women in Ukraine is one of the burning issues. However, the Minister made a helpful reference to the successful prosecution of a senior military commander in the Democratic Republic of Congo. What can we do to ensure that those in the command structure of the Russian forces are aware that they themselves become liable to prosecution if they fail to prevent rape from being committed by troops serving under their command? That would be a powerful message to send.

Vicky Ford: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I also think that this Chamber is sometimes a very powerful place from which to send messages, so let me send this message again. Rape and sexual violence in war can be a war crime. It is always a crime, but it can be a war crime, and we are working with the international community to ensure that those who commit war crimes are held to account.
The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) mentioned the MP Lesia Vasylenko, who was so brave in telling the world the stories of some of the women. It is Lesia’s birthday today. She is 35. Can we all take a  moment to send her our best wishes, and our deepest thanks for what she is doing for women at this time? [Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear.”]

Kirsty Blackman: Accountability and ensuring justice and consequences are hugely important, and I do not want to detract from that, but they are not helping survivors on the ground right now. Could the Minister give us a bit more clarity on what her Department is doing to help those who either are in Ukraine or have fled Ukraine, and who are survivors of sexual violence in conflict? What support are they being given on the ground, and if such support is not currently being provided, how does the Minister intend to ramp things up so that it is provided now?

Vicky Ford: The tragedy is that, as the hon. Member will know, getting support into Ukraine itself can be particularly challenging at this time, especially in the most affected areas, but we have provided a very significant amount of support through humanitarian aid. Many of those who are working in Ukraine and in neighbouring countries are extremely experienced in this field.
As I said earlier, I met representatives of the Charity Commission this week to discuss safeguarding issues and to ensure that charities are thoroughly aware of them. As I also said earlier, the Metropolitan police have operationalised their war crimes division in order to be able to collect evidence from those who have come here, and I know that many other countries are doing the same.
All refugees will need support, which is why we are providing that humanitarian aid—and God bless the British people, too, for being so generous—but we understand that those who have suffered from sexual and other violence will need additional support.

Diana R. Johnson: The Minister has talked about another consequence of war being human trafficking, particularly for sexual exploitation. Can she say a bit more about what we are doing as a country to aid international investigations into human trafficking? Secondly, will she speak to her colleagues in the Home Office about the role of the National Crime Agency, particularly in relation to Ukrainian women who might be advertised for rape on pimps’ websites that are on a lot of social media platforms?

Vicky Ford: These are really important issues, and I completely agree with the right hon. Lady about how important it is to highlight them, especially the issue of safeguarding. That is why I had a discussion about safeguarding with the Charity Commission earlier this week. Significant work is also happening through Interpol to look at the situation on the ground. It is important to remind people that they are at risk of sexual exploitation and of modern-day slavery, which can involve sex workers. As I said earlier, we are aware of reports of civilians being forcibly removed, which is another violation of international humanitarian law. That is why we continue to support efforts to investigate the violation of human rights and international humanitarian law.

Kirsten Oswald: I recently tabled a named day question asking about the requirement for refugees from Ukraine to obtain visas to enter the  UK, and the assessment of the level of risk to women and children from human traffickers in that context. The response to that question is now nine days overdue. I know that this is an incredibly difficult situation, but it is even more difficult to properly safeguard women and girls if we have not identified and assessed the risks. Is the Minister able to commit to that being taken forward as part of the work she has set out today?

Vicky Ford: On the issue of visas, there is about to be an urgent question on that subject. It is important to have proper processes for visas and for those who have offered homes to Ukrainian refugees precisely because of those safeguarding concerns.

Andrew Gwynne: Violence against women and girls is unacceptable in any circumstances. The use of rape as a weapon of war is abhorrent, and those who perpetrate it must be brought to justice for the sake of the victims. Some of those women will reach these shores safely, and we have a duty not just to protect and look after them but to assist them in coming to terms with the absolutely awful experiences they have had. What extra resources are the Government putting into mental health services for those people who have fled Ukraine?

Vicky Ford: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that conflict-related sexual violence is truly hideous. In 2020, a report from the UN Secretary-General found conflict-related sexual violence in 18 different countries. I will need to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specific question on mental health support, but I point him to the fact that on 4 March, the Metropolitan police operationalised its war crimes division. That is significant because one important way to help women is to let them know how they can come and tell their stories in order to be able to hold people to account. From the accounts that I have heard from women, knowing that they are doing their bit to prevent this from happening to others in the future can itself be part of the mental healing process.

Fleur Anderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I also thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for asking it and giving the House the opportunity to expose and denounce rape as a weapon of war. It must not be normalised and, as the Minister has said, perpetrators must be brought to justice. Will the Minister confirm whether there have been discussions about the UK introducing atrocity prevention strategies to FCDO country offices to give early warning and training and to stop atrocities such as sexual violence in this and other conflicts?

Vicky Ford: As the hon. Member knows, because she came to meet me, a huge amount of work goes on with our conflict prevention strategy not only in Ukraine but around the world. Right now, we are focusing on supporting the people of Ukraine. It is incredibly important that Putin stops this war and stops the violence. Our priority at the moment is to help to reduce the impact of that conflict on those people. The hon. Member is right to say that we work across the world to try to reduce conflict. Indeed, I was in Nigeria recently, which is one of the most challenging countries from the point of view of attacks on civilians, even though it is not what  we would describe as a warzone. The work we are doing there to try to reduce conflict is absolutely part of our approach, and it has to be done in the right way for a particular place.

Brendan O'Hara: Earlier this week I met Amnesty International, which is working on the ground in Ukraine and has growing concerns about the use of sexual violence against women and girls. Will the Minister assure the House that when the evidence is collected and people are called to account, this hideous and despicable crime is not simply lumped together with other crimes but is seen as a stand-alone offence and will be punished as such to the full extent of the law? That would send a clear signal that it is not acceptable and that the perpetrators will be hunted down, called to account and punished for what they have done.

Vicky Ford: May I use this opportunity to thank Amnesty International, including the branch in my constituency of Chelmsford, which does a fantastic amount of work to raise concerns about human rights issues right across the world? The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that sexual violence in war is completely unacceptable. That is why, as I have said, the Foreign Secretary has made it a priority to work internationally on a new agreement or convention in order to strengthen the global response, to increase prevention of conflict-related sexual violence, to strengthen the state’s commitment to survivors and, most importantly, to improve our mechanisms to hold these dreadful perpetrators to account.

Peter Grant: Given their proximity to Ukraine, some of the poorest countries in Europe are already looking after huge numbers of refugees, many of whom will have been victims of rape and sexual violence or will have been traumatised by what they have witnessed. These countries do not have the resources to provide the specialist support that these refugees need urgently. Has the Minister considered making an offer to countries such as Moldova to send specialist support from the United Kingdom to work with women there while we cannot get anyone into Ukraine? Has she asked the Chancellor for, at the very least, a temporary increase in funding so that the support given to the victims of sexual violence in Ukraine does not come at the expense of resources for other work around the world to protect the lives and rights of women and girls in other areas of conflict?

Vicky Ford: I assure the hon. Member that the UK is one of the largest donors not only of humanitarian aid—we have recently pledged £220 million—but of humanitarian teams. An emergency medical team has been deployed to neighbouring countries, including Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Moldova, which he mentioned.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her obvious appreciation of the issue and understanding of how to address it. May I also say, with absolute honesty, that her response to the urgent question shook me to my core? It highlighted once again the depravity and evil of men. Rape has been considered a war crime for many years, but it is not enough merely to cite evidence of it. Russian war crimes are multiple, targeting schools and hospitals, and killing babies, women and  the elderly and disabled. Will the Minister lead the charge? Evidence is already being collated—I think Ukrainian MPs already have evidence. Will she stop at nothing to make sure that those responsible are held to account and that punishment for those who carry out these awful crimes will be certain?

Vicky Ford: The hon. Member is absolutely right that it is vital that we hold people to account. That is why it is essential that the ICC can carry out its investigation, and it is why the UK will provide military, policing and financial support to help uncover evidence of such crimes. Ultimately, it is crucial that we seek justice, because only through justice will we be able to prevent such crimes from happening.

Royal Assent

Lindsay Hoyle: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Act 2022
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022
Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022
National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Act 2022.

Ukraine Refugee Visas

Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on visas for Ukrainian refugees.

Kevin Foster: The conflict in Ukraine continues to shock the world. Putin’s invasion is deplorable and he must fail. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people at this time. We are determined to help Ukrainians to find safety in the face of Russia’s aggression, and that is why the Government have mounted a comprehensive humanitarian response. In a short time, we have set up two new visa schemes from scratch, made changes to support Ukrainians already in the UK and surged our operations to meet demand.
Under the Ukraine family scheme, more than 23,500 visas have been issued to family members of Ukrainians already here in the UK. After setting up the scheme, we extended it to cover wider family members. Alongside that, we have set up the Homes for Ukraine scheme, to provide a safe and legal route for Ukrainians who do not have existing family ties in the UK. That is led by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) is the Minister who will be updating the House on it shortly. It has been heartwarming to see so many members of the public coming forward as sponsors, and my hon. Friend will be able to outline wider work that is being done to take advantage of those offers. Both those schemes are free and allow people on them to work and access public funds.
We have made it as easy as possible for people to apply. We have simplified the application form to make it quick and easy to use. We have increased capacity in visa application centres across Europe. Following advice from security and intelligence agencies that it was safe to do so, we have removed the need for biometrics to be taken from those with valid Ukrainian passports before arrival in the UK, allowing the vast majority of applicants to apply entirely online. We regularly monitor the scheme’s operational performance, bringing in additional caseworkers to ensure Ukrainian applications are prioritised. Our humanitarian response has involved the whole of Government, local authorities and the devolved Administrations, and we will keep working together to support Ukrainians who want to come to the UK.

Yvette Cooper: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. This visa system is simply not working. It is leaving thousands of families in limbo because of Home Office bureaucracy. A businesswoman who is trying to get her sister and daughter to come here on the family visa scheme is still waiting, 10 days after she applied to the Home Office. A constituent of mine in Pontefract who applied under the Homes for Ukraine scheme has been waiting nearly two weeks to hear anything back from the Home Office. Another British host who applied for a visa for a woman undergoing a high-risk pregnancy has waited 12 days for a reply. Despite the Home Office helpline saying that she would be treated as a priority, that woman has had to travel extensively to complete biometrics in Warsaw and has still received no reply.
A mother and two young sons who had been granted a family visa and were due to travel this week had their visa revoked at the last minute. They had been advised by the visa centre to apply for the Homes for Ukraine scheme as well, so that they could link up with a host family. Now the Home Office has revoked their first visa and said that they cannot travel, and it has told them nothing more about what is going on. This is Kafkaesque. What on earth is going on? Why is the Home Secretary so totally incapable of getting any grip on this, despite repeated questions we have asked?
Can the Minister tell us how many people have actually arrived on the Homes for Ukraine scheme? Why on earth is it too early to tell us? The Government should be able to give us the basic facts. On the family visas, 23,000 have been issued so far, but 25,000 people had already applied and submitted their applications more than two weeks ago, so it is clearly taking at least two weeks to clear cases. Even at the current rate, only 700 family visas have been issued since yesterday. At that rate, it is going to take well over a week just to clear the existing backlog of cases that he accepts have been submitted.
The Home Office has suddenly stopped publishing all the figures and deleted from its figures the thousands of people who are still waiting for a visa centre appointment. That is not good enough. It is not the kind of transparency we need to make sure that desperate people are getting the support they need. Why on earth is it taking so long? Why are we still demanding reams of bureaucracy and reams of information when the Government have been told by the refugees Minister and by Home Office officials that the security checks can be done really quickly? Why, then, is this taking so long? Why are they expecting people still to make these emergency journeys?
Tens of thousands of people are still stuck in the system. Families are desperate. People from across Britain have said that they want to help, yet the Home Office is letting the whole system down. Is that deliberate, or is it just total incompetence? Why on earth can the Home Secretary not get a grip on this and sort it out, to help desperate families?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I grant urgent questions, but I do not make the rules, and they say that for each one the Member asking the question has two minutes. You have to stick to that, otherwise I will not be able to grant UQs. Please, can we just stick to the rules?

Yvette Cooper: Apologies, Mr Speaker.

Kevin Foster: First, it is too early to say how many people have arrived under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, but we are now publishing details of visa grants. By 9am today 3,705 visas had been granted, and the trajectory for visa grants is increasing every day. I remind hon. Members that at one point last week we issued nearly 6,000 family scheme visas in two days. Again, that shows the type of capacity available once we get decisions ready to be made, and we would expect to see a similar increase in trajectory on the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
On the accusation that applications are being deleted, what has actually happened is, first, a removal of duplicates, for example where someone applied initially with biometrics and then did so without biometrics. Where someone did not qualify for the family scheme but they have someone in the UK who would be prepared to sponsor them—such  as godparents, for the sake of argument—we transfer this over to the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Members will realise why that is a sensible and proportionate approach to take.
On the accusation about “reams of info”, we have cut back on what people are asked to supply. We do not need authorised translations and people can submit in Ukrainian, with the most basic of documentation: any evidence that shows residence in Ukraine. Again, we are not asking people to give us travel history or previous addresses; we are asking purely for something that shows they were resident in Ukraine in December and that there is a basic family link, if relevant, for the family scheme. We are cutting down the information purely to that which is necessary for vital safeguarding checks.
This is the latest in a number of humanitarian interventions and routes we have created over the past year. We saw the determination to help people in Afghanistan, from which we saw the biggest evacuation since Dunkirk; we saw the British national overseas route delivered, with more than 100,000 applications over the past year; and now we see these two routes for Ukrainians set up in record time, with tens of thousands of people already having visas under them. I just compare that with how the shadow Home Secretary got on with her own pledge to rehome one Syrian refugee.

Robert Jenrick: This is going to be a wonderful scheme and we are all looking forward to welcoming tens of thousands of Ukrainians to this country, but something is going wrong with the scheme right now. Tomorrow, the vast majority of sponsors will have waited two weeks and will not have heard anything at all. We are testing the patience of people in this country who have put themselves forward as sponsors and, much more importantly, we are letting down vulnerable individuals and families in Ukraine. We need to process only about 8,000 households, and we are talking about 20,000 or 30,000 applications in total. That is not a huge or insurmountable task, but it does require the Home Office to make sure that the resources and the leadership are in place to get this sorted. I hope that we have heard today from the Minister that that will now happen in the next few days.

Kevin Foster: My right hon. Friend is right to say that people want to get on and help. Tens of thousands of people throughout the country have made a very generous offer and they want to be able to extend that and for it to be taken up. We are rightly doing vital safeguarding checks. Sadly, we have had some pings on the police national computer in respect of some of the sponsors who have come forward, and we will need to consider them, but the vast and overwhelming majority of people want to do the right thing.
I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s wish that we go faster. As I have touched on, the rate at which visas are being granted is increasing. As we have seen with the Ukraine family scheme, once people have passed through a number of checks, we can quickly start to issue a large number of visas, which is what we plan to do.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Stuart McDonald: Four million people are seeking sanctuary, but just 0.6% of them have been offered sanctuary in the UK. That is the inevitable consequence  of using a clunky, bureaucratic and, frankly, traumatising visa system to deal with an urgent humanitarian crisis.
Around 140 countries do not require Ukrainians to have a visa before they travel there; we say it should be the same for the United Kingdom. I appreciate that the Government do not want to go as far as that, but why not allow even some Ukrainians—for example, those with biometric passports and children—to travel visa-free? That would free up significant capacity to speed things along. If that is not possible, will the Minister publish the reasons why he thinks it is not? If it is really all about security, why are there any other visa requirements at all? Why not grant a visa to any Ukrainian refugee who applies for one?
Finally, I welcome the Ukraine extension scheme that was announced this week, but it still excludes the possibility of people bringing their family here under the family scheme. A seasonal agricultural worker who switches to that route will still not be able to sponsor their family under the family route. Why not allow that to happen? Why not also allow Ukrainians whose visas expired before January to apply under the extension scheme? Until that changes, the Government are still excluding the possibility of huge swathes of the Ukrainian community here being joined by their families. Allowing that is the least we should be doing.

Kevin Foster: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s questions and the way he put them. I also appreciate the fact that there is a fundamental difference in respect of our belief, based on the advice we have received, that there needs to be a visa process with safeguarding checks and certain key security checks. We would not usually publish such advice, particularly when it is from intelligence and security agencies, for reasons with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific points about the Ukraine extension scheme, provided that the people on that scheme have at least six months’ leave to remain—which they will have—they will be able to sponsor people under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. He gave the particular example of seasonal workers; the bigger challenge there will be to ensure that there is appropriate accommodation. I do not think any of us would advocate that it would be sensible to bring people into the UK without at least having an idea of where they would spend their first night in bed.
We have worked with the Scottish Government on their super-sponsor scheme, which allows someone who does not have a sponsor to come here, with the Scottish Government in effect becoming their sponsor here in the UK. Applications for that scheme have been received and we have been pleased to work on it with the Scottish Government and, in particular, with Neil Gray, to whom I pay tribute from the Dispatch Box for his constructive work.
Strong progress is being made. We have seen what we have already done with the family scheme; we would now expect to see the same trajectory for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. The question asked in the previous session on this issue may perhaps be asked in this one, and we still believe it is right that we do safeguarding checks, particularly given that children will potentially come to live with adults they have not previously met.

Christopher Chope: The experience that I have had in Christchurch, where we have already welcomed some Ukrainians who have arrived, has been much more positive. I thank the Minister and his team for being so accommodating towards MPs who raise particular issues. Will he encourage individuals and families who want to take advantage of the schemes and are finding bureaucratic problems to contact their MPs? Everyone who has contacted me has had a satisfactory result.

Kevin Foster: I am pleased to hear of the results that my hon. Friend has been able to achieve for his constituents, as he always does. It is good to see people arrive and to see communities such as Christchurch stepping up and doing their bit. It is encouraging that we have seen offers coming in from throughout the UK, rather than just from areas that have had, let us say, more of a tradition of taking part in the local government-based resettlement schemes. It is very good to hear of my hon. Friend’s experience. I have had constituent contact, as I am sure other colleagues have. MPs from all parties are doing their bit to advance cases when they are contacted.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Diana R. Johnson: I really do not understand why the Minister says that it is too early to know how many have arrived on the Homes for Ukraine scheme, because he has also just said that it is very important that the Home Office knows where people spend their first night in the UK. Perhaps he will be able to enlighten us on when he will be able to tell us the numbers.
As an example of the ongoing problems with bureaucracy, may I just tell the Minister about the case of Anna Kalyata? She has just given birth in temporary accommodation in Poland, having fled Ukraine. She does not speak English and, even though she has been matched under the sponsorship scheme, she has been told that she needs to have a birth certificate for the baby to allow the baby to get a visa. She is in a foreign country, traumatised by war and is now thinking of going back to Ukraine to register the birth. Surely the Home Office can have a more compassionate response to women, children and babies.

Kevin Foster: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. It would not be appropriate for me to go into an individual case on the Floor of the House. Certainly, we are able to process children. We are conscious that some children, including some who have arrived from Ukraine, will not have any documentation. I am happy to look at the particular example that she has cited, but she should appreciate that there are particular issues, as touched on in the previous urgent question, about children being removed particularly from Poland and the border countries, which is why we have to go through certain checks.

Desmond Swayne: It is quicker than getting a driving licence—I will give the Minister that. The service provided in Portcullis House is excellent. I took a case down there this morning. The person called up the record. It was received on 19 March. All the information is there and correct. It is simply awaiting a decision. Now that is disappointing, is it not?

Kevin Foster: Yes, I share my right hon. Friend’s disappointment, but as I have touched on, we are seeing the pace of decision making increase, as happened with the Ukraine family scheme. At one point last week, we saw 6,000 visas issued under that scheme in just two days. The trajectory is increasing; it is on a similar trajectory to the Ukraine family scheme, and we look forward to being able to make decisions very shortly on the vast majority of cases.

Matthew Pennycook: I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) that neither visa system is working currently at the pace required. May I ask the Minister how applications are being prioritised, and specifically whether he can assure me that those with serious medical conditions, or who are at risk because of their location, are at the top of the list when it comes to processing their applications?

Kevin Foster: Certainly, where there are specific issues, we will look to prioritise a case. We make the point that people do not need to wait in Ukraine for a decision: they are welcome to move or to apply from safe third countries. As was touched on in the previous urgent question, the actual challenge for many people will be getting from where they are in Ukraine to a safe neighbouring country, not least given some of the war crimes that are being committed by Russian forces against civilians, to which those travelling are vulnerable. We will prioritise where appropriate, and, certainly, if there are particular instances of where that needs to be done, I am happy to hear them.

Stephen Hammond: May I say to my hon. Friend that from my experience, I support the comments of my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne)? I welcome the progress that the Government are making, but may I say to him that I had a constituent in Poland at the weekend trying to help, and that, on the frontline, access to visas and applications is still far too difficult? What more can the Government do to simplify the process so that we can help these migrants from Putin’s violence?

Kevin Foster: We have certainly provided support, and we have a support hub out in Poland. We have also simplified the form quite significantly since the launch of the Ukraine family scheme, removing a number of parts that did not require basic security and safeguarding checks. Working with our colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, we are keen to look at what further support we can provide not only to those who are applying to our two visa schemes, but, for example, to the relatively small number of surrogate babies that will be born British in Ukraine. We will look at what support we can have available once people have crossed the border into Poland.

Wendy Chamberlain: I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) about what has been available in PCH. I have certainly made some real progress with cases, but I am concerned that those staff will not be available during recess. Even a skeleton staff would be  helpful there. Following on from the comments of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, I have a three-year-old stuck in Poland, with a birth certificate but not a passport. UK Visas and Immigration has said she needs biometric security clearance as a result. Are we really going to make the family wait weeks or even months to join relatives in the UK because UKVI thinks their toddler needs a security check?

Kevin Foster: We would paint cases involving children as having safeguarding checks rather than security checks, which were touched on in another context earlier today. In terms of our visa application centre capacity, given that the vast majority are now applying without needing to make a biometric appointment, there is capability. Certainly in urgent or compassionate cases, we would look to find availability quickly and, as touched on in answer to a previous question, we would look to turn around the visa decision quickly as well.

Harriett Baldwin: Last week, at the Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, the UK delegation was able to meet our Polish parliamentary counterparts to thank them for everything their country has been doing to welcome such an enormous influx of refugees from Ukraine, and to ask them what more the UK could do to make the process work better for those who want to come here. They made two constructive suggestions, which I will feed in. The first is that they are using the twinning network between communities across Europe; I urge the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to look at that network and establish links such as those with Malvern, where 200 families want to welcome refugees but do not necessarily know where they can locate them. Secondly, they wanted to see the application form written in Ukrainian. I wonder whether that is something that could easily be done.

Kevin Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for her positive suggestions. The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), is here on the Front Bench and can look at using the twinning network—particularly, ideally, where there may be some language ability in either Polish or Ukrainian. That would be useful in helping people to settle, certainly in their first few days. In terms of engagement with Poland, I was with the Polish ambassador this week, talking to them directly and hearing what their priorities are. Their key focus is that we need to support the vast majority of people who will look to remain in the region, rather than just seeing resettlement as the priority, but it was useful to hear their thoughts on what more we could do to support them.
On moving the application form into Ukrainian, we are looking to provide guidance on how to fill it in in Ukrainian and Russian, since some Ukrainians speak Russian as their first language. To translate the whole form would require a significant amount of technical work; moreover, the vast majority of our decision makers operate in English and it would be difficult to find large numbers of Ukrainian speakers who we could deploy into UKVI’s operation. Certainly, our goal is to make it relatively simple, so that people can fill in the basic information that they need to for the safeguarding check. Any documents they submit do not need to be  translated. Birth certificates and any other proofs or documents we might ask for can be submitted in Ukrainian, given that the decision makers are familiar with the documents themselves. Certainly, we are looking at how we can advance the digital capability and the guidance so that people know what they are doing step by step as they go through the form.

Andrew Slaughter: Many emails I have received have a common theme. I will just quote a couple:
“I have had to write…no fewer than five different applications in order to be able to comply with the requirements of the scheme.”
Another said:
“The forms, aimed at Ukrainians, were hard for me to fill out and I speak English and am used to forms, but I managed to help them complete the application. The applications were submitted on Saturday 19th March. Since then we have heard nothing.”
The first email went on:
“While our friend is in danger, the Home Office is mired in bureaucracy, prioritising form over human life. It looks to me as if the whole process is going to take weeks and weeks.”
Will the Minister admit that there are blockages in the systems, and will he do something to clear them?

Kevin Foster: As we have already touched on, we are now seeing the rate of grants increasing significantly on the Homes for Ukraine scheme, as we saw with the Ukraine family scheme. I have touched on the number of visas that we issued in just two days last week under that scheme. We expect to see the same with this scheme, and we will soon see a very large number of the applications that have been made granted.

Kim Leadbeater: I have been overwhelmed by the generosity of the British people, including those in my constituency of Batley and Spen, who have offered to open their homes to Ukrainian families. They desperately want to help and are ready and waiting. Can the Minister tell these good people why the Government are making it so difficult for families who are fleeing the devastating attack on their country by asking them to fill in, as we have heard, these lengthy, multiple-page online forms, often in English, and upload so many documents? What is being done to ditch this extra bureaucracy, which takes caseworkers days to review, and what is being done to speed up the whole process?

Kevin Foster: I certainly would not say that it would take caseworkers days to review an individual form. In many cases, the online forms are literally click-through pages to say, “No, I don’t have a criminal record”. We have touched on how the process is accelerating. We will see many more applications granted and many of the people making such generous offers getting to be able to play their part.

Alison Thewliss: My constituents Nick and Aileen Walker registered as hosts on 14 March and have been in touch with a family from Ukraine that they wish to host—a grandmother, mother and 11-month-old baby daughter, who registered their applications on 18 March. Can the Minister confirm how long people will be expected to wait for this visa  paperwork to be processed, because it is increasingly difficult for families such as these to wait in insecure accommodation in a range of different countries in Europe, when they should be in a place of safety and sanctuary in Glasgow?

Kevin Foster: As touched on, we are now seeing the rate of visa grants accelerating and we should continue to see that over the next week. We would expect to see the majority of current cases being decided fairly shortly. We are very conscious that people do want to get settled. It is great to see the community in Glasgow standing up on this scheme in the way that it has on every other refugee resettlement scheme and supporting those claiming asylum here in the UK.

Olivia Blake: I want to question the Minister on the capacity in the system at the moment. If 200,000-odd people have come forward through the Homes for Ukraine scheme and only roughly a quarter of applications have been processed so far, what is he going to do to make sure that there is enough capacity in the system to allow everyone who wants to come here to do so? What conversations has he been having with the Treasury to ensure that we have the resources to do this?

Kevin Foster: The scheme is uncapped from a visa point of view. I suspect that the issue of conversations with the Treasury may be more for the next UQ about the funding that will be provided to local communities where people are sponsoring. We are clear: it is an uncapped scheme with no restrictions. If very large numbers of people want to sponsor individuals, we welcome that. One of the reasons we have gone down the path of appealing directly to the public is that it has proved, first, to deliver far more spaces much more quickly; and secondly, to be much better value for money than more traditional schemes, as, sadly, we have seen with Afghanistan. When a large number of people arrived, offers via local councils from communities did not come forward to the necessary level and therefore we ended up having to pay for people to stay in hotels.

Layla Moran: I have an urgent case that I need to raise on this last day before we rise for recess. The mother has a five-year-old. She is in Italy. She is eight months pregnant. If she does not get a visa literally in the next few days, she will not be allowed to fly by her doctor. She speaks no word of Italian and is really worried about having to give birth with doctors that she cannot communicate with. Meanwhile we have a host ready and waiting for her in Oxfordshire. Will the Minister urgently take up this case and help us to get her over?

Kevin Foster: I am very happy to do so if the hon. Lady gives me the details after this session.

Jeff Smith: The cases of the constituents in Manchester who contact me generally follow the same pattern, which is that they do the hard work of locating and liaising with the family in Ukraine, they submit the complicated application form, they get a receipt and then they hear nothing. That is the frustration. People are being left in limbo either in Poland or under shelling in Ukraine. One of my constituents phrased it very well. He said: “All I want to do is to  make sure there is nothing we haven’t done which may be holding up the application process.” If the Government will not sort out a simple emergency visa scheme, can they at least sort out the communication so that people know what is going on?

Kevin Foster: That is a fair point about updating people. Certainly people would be contacted if there was something that was needed from them, rather than us conducting the checks he would expect us to conduct from a safeguarding and security perspective. But a fair point has been made by colleagues across the House about the communication that needs to be sent out to those who have made applications, and we are certainly happy to take that forward.

Anna McMorrin: I am not sure the Minister is actually hearing the issues being raised in the House about the shambles of this system, which is proving impossible. One of my constituents has offered their home to a family they are in touch with, and it is heartening to see how many families have come forward, but this family cannot flee Ukraine until their visa is approved because their son is disabled. Living in a refugee camp would prove too difficult. They are living with the daily trauma of sirens. Sheltering is proving to be too difficult with their son, yet they are still waiting for a visa from the Home Office. What can the Government do to step in urgently, issue a visa and look at this and many of the other issues like it to resolve this crisis immediately?

Kevin Foster: As we have touched on, in total we have already issued more than 27,000 visas across the two schemes. We have touched on how the Homes for Ukraine scheme is accelerating the number of visa grants, and that means that for those who urgently need it, it will be there. We have already touched on the ability for Members to put forward cases, where there is the need to prioritise them.

Kirsten Oswald: Constituents of mine have been in touch from Poland, where they have been helping a Ukrainian mother and daughter to make their way to the UK. I understand that one of the many barriers that they faced was a visa centre without any working printers due to the failure of an outsourced service. As the UK Government are insisting on this visa process, what undertaking can the Minister give us today on the steps being taken immediately to prevent the visa process breaking down, because issues such as this are leaving vulnerable people in limbo and high and dry?

Kevin Foster: Absolutely. The move to divert the vast majority of people applying to both these schemes away from visa application and the need to have a formally printed vignette, which is what the hon. Lady is referring to, has made a dramatic difference in terms of capability. Certainly our contractors assure us that printing facilities are available, but if there is a specific example, I am happy to look at it, because we need to ensure that where people need a vignette, it is issued. We have been engaging with carriers to ensure that they then accept the form that it is fixed to when people present themselves at airports. We have had that issue flagged to us, too.

Andrew Gwynne: Can I say to the Minister that I still think an emergency visa scheme would be far less bureaucratic than the system we have now? I remind him that some of the most vulnerable people have fled their homes without technology and the paperwork necessary for them to be able to complete the forms. What is the Minister doing to ensure that these people are not forgotten? What changes is he making to the system so that people who do not have the technology or the paperwork do not get left behind?

Kevin Foster: First, I am not sure what taking time out to set up another visa scheme would deliver in this context, compared with the refinements to the process that we already have in place. I can appreciate the argument about not having a visa. We do not agree with it and I think it is a bit odd to go down that path, but our decision makers have extensive flexibility. We appreciate that the type of documents we might normally ask for, such as translated copies of birth certificates, will not reasonably be able to be got hold of in a warzone. Our decision makers, subject to certain national security and safeguarding red lines, which the House would expect us to have for the protection of all involved, have a large amount of flexibility about the situations they can accept. Likewise, they can also consider families as a group. If one person has particular items, the decision maker can then apply that as proving the position of the rest of the family. It is safe to say there is significant flexibility for our decision makers, recognising the situation people are facing.

Brendan O'Hara: The Minister should recognise that the visa requirement is the root of the problem. Like most Members, I have been contacted by constituents who are desperate to help. They have signed up to the Homes for Ukraine scheme and identified families who they can assist, but they have run into red tape and bureaucracy. How can the Minister assure the Gibbs-Hall family from Dunoon, Jim and Margaret Love from Helensburgh, Sam Gallagher from Clynder, the Douglas family from Oban, Eddie McCreath from Lochgilphead and Hamish McKinnon from the Arrochar hotel, who all stand ready and willing to help with offers of accommodation and employment, that their incredible kind offers of help will not go to waste?

Kevin Foster: It is great to hear that so many people are stepping forward. As the local MP, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is proud to see how his community is stepping forward to offer a hand of friendship and practical support. It is worth noting that this is the biggest offer of housing in people’s own homes since the wartime evacuation, which shows the scale.
The pace and trajectory of visas being granted is increasing each day. We saw that with the Ukraine family scheme, and we now look to see it with the Homes for Ukraine scheme so that people’s generous and heartfelt offers will soon be taken up.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for our meeting yesterday. He was able to help with two cases, one involving some 33 Ukrainians who are coming to my constituency. He helped to make that happen, for which I thank him and his staff. These things work only because staff make Ministers look good, and I say that  with all honesty. The same is true of my office, by the way, and I am not saying it is not the same for anyone else.
Checks must be made for the many Ukrainians who do not have a passport. My office has been greatly aided by a young man in an office hub in Poland, who went so far as to give his mobile phone number to the church group that is bringing people to my constituency. The Home Office is carrying out biometric checks, and so on, but does it have enough translators? The church group left its fluent English speaker in Poland to help this dedicated man with other applications, but he cannot be there every day. Is there any way of giving him some assistance?

Kevin Foster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about the staff who have been working on this scheme. Following other comments and feedback, we are considering the provision in our hub over the recess in addition to the phoneline for Members of Parliament.
Many of the staff in our visa application centres are locally employed, so many will be native Polish speakers rather than being UK staff sent out to Poland. Many will be familiar with and fluent in the local language, and they should be able to support people in making applications. We also have military and other support from the Home Office on the ground to work with people capable of speaking a basic level of English to support people in making applications.
As I said to the hon. Gentleman yesterday, it is great to see the community in Strangford stepping forward to help 35 people. People can be supported to make their application, and they do not have to use the terminal themselves. People are welcome to make an application for others if that is easier in the circumstances.

Homes for Ukraine Scheme

Mike Amesbury: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if he will make a statement on the Homes for Ukraine scheme.

Eddie Hughes: President Putin’s bloody invasion is a barbaric and unprovoked attack on the people of Ukraine, who are fighting a daily battle for freedom. The UK has stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine at every stage of the conflict, including sending extensive military supplies months before the Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine. We are steeled to stand with Ukraine for the long haul.
In this country there has been an outpouring of public support for the Ukrainian people, and we have matched the generosity of the British public with an ambitious humanitarian offer to Ukrainians who wish to come to the UK to escape the conflict. As hon. Members will know, since the Home Office opened and expanded the Ukrainian family scheme and my Department launched the Homes for Ukraine scheme with our Home Office colleagues, both schemes have received thousands upon thousands of applications from people willing to open their heart and their home to a new guest.
We have balanced the need to move rapidly with the equal need to get the Homes for Ukraine scheme right. The visa application process opened on Friday 18 March, since when we have seen the first arrivals come to the UK. Members on both sides of the House are as invested as we are in making the scheme as efficient and effective as possible. We are minimising bureaucratic foot-dragging and cutting unnecessary red tape, while making sure people are set up in the best possible situation to start a life in the UK and to access the right local services and support.
The scheme will be a success only if local and national Government work as one, so we are providing councils with £10,500 per guest to help with all the support they will need. We have been working with the Local Government Association and individual councils across the country to fine-tune the scheme’s practicalities and logistics. As the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said, we will keep things under review to ensure that local government has and gets what it needs. We are also working closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have a consistent offer across the country. Some 4 million Ukrainians have been displaced by this bloody and unjust war so far. The UK will continue to respond to the gravity of the conflict and we will continue to work with Members of the House to open up our communities to Ukrainians in the weeks and months ahead.

Mike Amesbury: Nearly 150,000 people have signed up to sponsor Ukrainian refugees in a testament to the generous spirit of our nation and regions, yet that generosity risks being wasted because the figures released confirm that just 2,700 visas have been granted by the Government under the scheme so far. Of course, visas being granted are not the same as refugees arriving here after fleeing for their lives from the bullets, missiles and bombs. Can the Minister tell the House  how many refugees have arrived in the UK through the scheme and what has gone wrong so far in getting them here?
After the issue with visas, things are even less clear. There remain real concerns among councils that have not been addressed. How will they know when refugees have arrived in their authority and require services? Proactive data sharing is simply not good enough and safeguarding is falling down. Do the checks on sponsor families need to have been fully completed before a family can begin travelling to the UK? Does the £10,500 for councils, which the Minister mentioned, cover refugees only in this scheme or in the family visa scheme too?
There are real fears of a homelessness crisis if sponsorships break down. As reported yesterday by the Local Government Association, nearly 150 Ukrainians have already presented themselves to councils as homeless having fled the conflict to stay with family members in the UK who have no room. Can the Minister tell me and the House what urgent guidance and support his Department is giving to councils on those cases?
The Government must now take an active role in matching sponsors to refugees, otherwise the generosity of people who want to help will be wasted. The British people have stepped up in Ukraine’s hour of need; it is clear that the Government urgently need to do the same.

Eddie Hughes: I think that the Government are acting urgently. It is testament to the efforts of people in an incredible civil service who are prepared to work very long hours, seven days a week and to pivot from their previous day jobs to move in an agile fashion to deal with the trauma that that country is facing and ensure that the maximum number of people have visas granted and can have a secure and safe home in this country. It is disappointing, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect tremendously, thinks that the Government and the civil service are not responding urgently.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of 150,000; I believe that the number of people who have expressed an interest and are prepared to open up their homes is closer to 200,000. [Interruption.] It is slightly frustrating to answer one question and have Opposition Members race ahead to the three or four others that have been asked. Patience would be a virtue for everybody involved in this process—at least for the sake of this urgent question. Mr Speaker, do you not think it would be nice for them to wait for the answer before they get too carried away?
How will councils know? We have a matching process and once the sponsor has been matched with the guest online with the form, councils will be alerted so that they know that a match has been made for a sponsor in their area. They can then begin the process of preparation immediately.
Will checks need to be completed fully before people travel? Inasmuch as once the visa is granted, checks will already have started, we will already have started to investigate whether there has been criminality on the part of either party. We need to make absolutely sure that we are reassured of the safety on both sides of the equation—of the person travelling here and of the people opening up their homes. Those checks will be carried out initially and then further checks will be carried out by the receiving authority once it has been notified of the match.
Once the authority has been notified, it will be expected to go out and inspect the property to make sure it is appropriate for such people’s needs, and begin the process of further checks, as required. For example, if there are children or vulnerable adults in the households that are coming, a further enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check will be required.
With regards to the money, the £10,500 is for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Obviously, for the rest of the elements of this scheme, we are making a very generous offer in that people who arrive in the UK will be allowed to work and claim benefits immediately, so that they can begin to integrate fully here.
Finally, on the 150 homeless people the hon. Gentleman mentioned, he will know that I, as the Minister for homelessness, have a very keen interest in this. We will be investigating to ensure that we completely understand what has led to such a situation. As a Government, with the charities and all involved—and MPs have a role in this—we need to make sure people understand that the most appropriate, safe and reliable route is that prescribed by the Government.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Stuart McDonald: Almost 200,000 volunteers is of course absolutely brilliant, but the fact that only 2,000 or 3,000 people have yet benefited from it is obviously far from that. Can I encourage the Government to keep working to simplify the process, but also to raise awareness of this scheme? We have had complaints that there is a lack of awareness of it among those fleeing Ukraine.
We have heard about the possible dangers of people trying to abuse the system for trafficking or exploitation purposes. Is that not also an argument for considering empowering local authorities to act as super-sponsors? That would allow a greater opportunity for safeguarding and for appropriate matching to be done.
May I ask about the co-ordination of the three different schemes that now exist? For example, could people who arrive under the family scheme who cannot be accommodated by their relatives instead be matched to one of the volunteers under the sponsorship scheme? That would seem a very simple and obvious way to avoid the homelessness we have heard about. It would also address the concerns expressed by the immigration Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—when I raised the prospect of seasonal agricultural workers being able to bring in their families. Even if the families cannot be accommodated with them, why not use a community sponsorship scheme to solve that problem?
Local authority funding under this sponsorship scheme is excellent, but why is there no funding for areas where significant numbers of Ukrainians are arriving under the family scheme, for example? Should that not be looked at again? May I ask what thinking there has been about what will happen later this year if significant numbers of Ukrainians are no longer able to remain with their hosts?
Finally, we still have several thousand Afghans in hotels. Can volunteers be asked if they would be willing to take an Afghan as well?

Eddie Hughes: The hon. Gentleman mentions that 2,000 or 3,000 visas have been granted, but 27,000 visas have been granted across the two schemes, and I think we need to be mindful of that. On the super-sponsor route and the idea that councils might be allowed to do that, I think we need to tread cautiously. We have one scheme running, and we need to make sure this one is running as effectively and efficiently as possible.
I am absolutely delighted by the offer that has been made by the devolved Assemblies in Wales and Scotland. It is absolutely tremendous to see the work that is being done in Scotland, and it is a great demonstration of Governments working together across the United Kingdom to make this process work.
On moves between schemes, for the moment we are trying to ensure that people stick to one route wherever possible. We will keep this under constant review, because we need to make sure that we respond to a developing situation.
Finally, on Afghans, we learn from one scheme as we develop another, so as this one progresses we will understand what merits it has and what challenges it provides, and we will use that learning to determine what we can apply to other schemes in operation in this country.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

Clive Betts: I think the Minister is going to get asked these questions over and over again until we get some adequate answers from him.
First, it cannot be justified that councils are, quite rightly, getting £10,500 per year per refugee when refugees come over on the sponsor scheme—councils have to provide wraparound services; it is all there, it is all understood—but when refugees come under the family scheme, for the most part, apart from the housing checks, the council has to do everything to support them. Why is there no money under that scheme and yet £10,500 under the other scheme? Will the Minister explain the difference in terms of the offers that councils have to make to those refugees?
Secondly, the Local Government Association told the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee yesterday that 144 Ukrainian refugees have presented as homeless so far. They have come under a variety of schemes, with some under the sponsorship scheme, some through Ireland and other routes and some through the family scheme—that is because family members do not have to provide accommodation. The whole reason for the sponsorship scheme is that councils do not have enough affordable, readily available homes to house people. The choice is therefore to put these refugees into temporary accommodation—hotels—or to match them up with the generous offers that sponsors want to make in those communities. Yesterday, the Prime Minister accepted that councils should have access to the database of sponsors so that they can be responsible for matching up refugees or homeless people with sponsors who want to house them. Can the Government just get on with it?

Eddie Hughes: We are getting on with it. When the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) took the earlier urgent question, he explained how we   are ramping up the process and ensuring that it is working as efficiently as possible. On the difference between the two schemes, people are completely at liberty to apply through the Homes for Ukraine scheme instead. I think we understand that people in the UK who are having a family member coming to live with them will provide services such as help with learning English, so some support that might otherwise be provided by a council will be given by a family. I think that is the natural way. However, as I said, it is not an either/or option; people can choose to apply through the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I fully accept that there is a challenge with regard to housing, and that is why it is tremendous that 200,000 people have decided to open up their homes.

Florence Eshalomi: The Minister highlighted that 200,000 people expressed an interest in the scheme, including many residents of my constituency. Stockwell Says Hello, which is helping to sponsor a Ukrainian family, contacted me recently because it could not find any clear guidance on the Government website. These questions have been asked time and again and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) said, the uncertainty may put off many people who want to show their generosity. On 8 March, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), said that 50 extra caseworkers had been trained to process applications. Does the Minister know how many of those caseworkers are in post and dealing with these applications?

Eddie Hughes: We can see this as an evolving process, with the Government continuing to ramp up and increase the resource committed. It would perhaps be unhelpful to provide a running commentary on the number of people working on the process, not least because there will be some ebb and flow given the number of people prepared to work over the weekend versus during the week. We are ensuring that the resource attributed to the effort is equal to the need and we are improving the fluency with which applications are being processed daily so that the maximum number of people who have submitted an expression of interest can house somebody from Ukraine.

Wendy Chamberlain: Like others, I commend everybody who has come forward to support the Homes for Ukraine scheme. However, it is important to remember that those sponsors are the conduit between the Home Office, the scheme run by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the refugees with whom they have been matched up. They are awaiting home checks, and in Scotland we are still waiting for local authority guidance, which places enormous pressure on sponsors as they try to navigate the system. Indeed, my caseworkers are taking calls from distressed sponsors who want to ensure that they have done everything they can to get those whom they have sponsored safely to the UK as fast as possible. What conversations have been had about putting in place emotional support to help sponsors who are opening their homes?

Eddie Hughes: One thing we have seen is a tremendous effort by charities and non-governmental organisations who are incredibly well placed to offer the guidance and  support that the hon. Lady refers to. On advice for councils, I understand that in Scotland it will be the responsibility of the devolved Assembly to provide that. From the tremendous efforts that I have seen in its work so far, I think that, if that has not already been provided, it will be coming very soon.

Diana R. Johnson: What action has the Department taken following the letter to the Secretary of State last week from 16 refugee and anti-trafficking charities setting out their concerns about the Homes for Ukraine scheme potentially being a Tinder for sex traffickers? We have seen men advertising for Ukrainian wives, and children posting on Facebook. Does the National Crime Agency have a view about the scheme and is it looking at sites such as Vivastreet, which advertises trafficked women—I am particularly worried about Ukrainian trafficked women—for sex? Will the Minister say what exactly the Department is doing?

Eddie Hughes: The Government are alive to all the concerns that the right hon. Lady mentions. We are collectively putting in effort to ensure that we close off areas where there are problems. Fundamentally, we are making sure that safety checks are completed at the point that the application is submitted and subsequently that the enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks are carried out. Finally, a representative from the council will see the sponsor and the guest to determine whether there are any safeguarding concerns. There are multiple gates through which people will pass in order to maximise the application of safety at all stages.

Alison Thewliss: Deborah Gourlay contacted me this morning to say that she has a flat in my constituency, wants to host somebody and has identified them—a mother and her young boy stuck in Warsaw. Deborah has put her application in, as has the other person, and they have heard nothing since. The email that they received basically said, “Don’t call us; we’ll call you.” How long will she have to wait before they can be matched up and this family can come to Glasgow?

Eddie Hughes: The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), might have considered some of those matters during the previous urgent question. The amount of resource that is being committed to this is increasing by the day. The fluency of the process is improving by the day and, hopefully, the answer to the hon. Lady’s question will be: very soon.

Andrew Slaughter: I am really proud of how my constituents, council and local refugee groups, such as West London Welcome and Refugee Action, are working together to welcome Ukrainian refugees. We had had 80 into the borough by Tuesday and that will more than double by the weekend. That includes welcome packs, cash and mental health support, as well as homes. However, will the Minister address the issue of temporary accommodation and people declaring themselves homeless? As a result of his Government’s policies, particularly in London, we do not have temporary accommodation available. What will he do? People cannot go into hotels, because hotels still have Afghan refugees from last summer. Please sort this problem out.

Eddie Hughes: The Government have committed £2 billion over the next three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, so we are making considerable efforts in this area. We would obviously prefer people to be matched with a sponsor and for that sponsorship arrangement to be maintained. Subsequently, councils may have the opportunity to rematch with another sponsor available in the area as well, given the huge number of people who have come forward to offer their homes.

Wera Hobhouse: Hundreds of private groups have sprung up since the scheme was launched and their generosity is hugely welcome, but this complex and difficult task can no longer be left to private initiatives. When will the Government recognise that they need to step up and bring Government officials to the Ukrainian border, as at least 20 other European countries have, to make sure that those fleeing war and war crimes do not end up homeless on our streets?

Eddie Hughes: I am slightly confused—perhaps I do not completely understand the question—but I think that for the Government to do the matches would be inappropriate. It seems to me that the matches made so far by non-governmental organisations or charities are proving incredibly effective. That approach is ensuring that the matches are more likely to last. With the greatest respect, for the Government to be involved in putting people together would only take away our focus from the administrative element that we need to deal with. There are excellent charities and NGOs that are very capable and are engaging very passionately with the Government to offer their services; I think that that is proving the best route.

Matt Western: The Secretary of State has said that if it were left to the individual sponsor and the refugees, the process would be a whole lot quicker. However, Kateryna and 11-year-old Vadym are living in temporary accommodation in Poland; a home and a school place are waiting for them in my constituency, but clearly the Home Office system of matching is not working. They are absolutely frustrated. They have a home waiting for them, so will the Minister step up, work with the Home Office and get them over to this country?

Eddie Hughes: The pace at which we are getting through applications is ramping up: we will very soon be working our way through more than 10,000 a week. I completely understand the frustration that the hon. Gentleman expresses, because we would all like to see the process working far more quickly than it is already, but we are committed to ensuring that it works more quickly by the day.

Layla Moran: We are all so proud of our constituents who have stepped up to be hosts. We should equally be proud of the council officers who are scrambling yet again and will absolutely deliver. They need two things to make their lives easier. The first is the housing checklist that was promised on Tuesday but is still not in place; the worry is that people will be put in homes that are not suitable. The second is DBS checks. The Minister will be aware that, during the pandemic, powers were delegated to second-tier authorities to help to make the checks work.  That legislation has expired, which means that it can be done only at county level; in Oxfordshire, only three people are allowed to do it. Will the Minister have a look at those two issues and come back to us as quickly as possible? If we need new legislation, we should be ready to make it.

Eddie Hughes: Yesterday, I met the leader of the District Councils’ Network, who explained that the checking process with properties seemed to be going very smoothly, that councils were completely familiar with what they were expected to do, and that they were making the appropriate checks. What I think we need to understand is that sometimes we do not need to be totally prescriptive. Councils have great experience in the area and can use common sense and be proportionate in the checks that they make. I think that those checks are being carried out and that appropriate property is being identified.
I agree with the hon. Lady about the fantastic effort. This feels like a period of genuine national endeavour. I commend all colleagues across the House and their staff who have engaged with the process and are working tirelessly on behalf of constituents to ensure that problems are overcome and matches are made. Long may that continue.

Jim Shannon: I very much welcome the scheme and thank the Minister for his answers. Northern Ireland, with a population of 1.8 million, has had more than 6,000 expressions of interest for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. As usual, the set-up in Northern Ireland, with council operations divided, is leading to delays in carrying out checks. Will the Minister confirm the answer to a technical question? If a family have in place the police checks that they need to work with children—the enhanced disclosure—can those checks be used or will new DBS or enhanced disclosure forms still be needed?

Eddie Hughes: That does feel like a very technical question, particularly for me. If the hon. Gentleman emails me, I will ensure that the appropriate Minister and civil servant respond accordingly.

Business of the House

Thangam Debbonaire: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

Mark Spencer: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Lady back in her place. The business for the week commencing 18 April will include:
Monday 18 April—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 19 April—Second Reading of the Online Safety Bill.
Wednesday 20 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Subsidy Control Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Building Safety Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill.
Thursday 21 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, followed by a general debate on childhood cancer outcomes. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 22 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 25 April will include:
Monday 25 April—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business and his kind welcome back; my deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for covering for me so skilfully; and hon. Members for their good wishes when I was laid low with covid last week. I will close for the Opposition in today’s debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment, which in my view is a jewel in the crown of democratic processes in this place. I will say more then, but for the benefit of those who will sadly not be joining us—how could they miss it?—let me wish everybody a happy recess.
It occurs to me on looking at the business statement that I do not yet see the COP15 debate that I believe we were promised would be rescheduled to after the recess but before Prorogation, because it has to come before COP15 itself. I may have got that wrong—it may be that my covidness has led to my missing something—but I would be grateful if the Leader of the House addressed that point.
The Government have now published the Arctic strategy. Her Majesty’s Opposition welcome confirmation that Russia and China are growing threats in the high north, but unfortunately there is little commitment to new action. Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has demanded an immediate response, but clearly we are still in the era of fighting big tank battles in Europe. Other European Governments are now reviewing their defence spending. Can the Leader of the House explain why no review of defence spending has been announced? There is no reform of military procurement, no real change to the  real cut in day-to-day Ministry of Defence spending, and less money for forces recruitment, training, pay and families. Will he ask the Defence Secretary to come to the House and give a statement?
Yesterday, the Transport Secretary gave us an update on the disgraceful situation with P&O Ferries. The steps announced by the Government are welcome, and we support them, but they are absolutely the bare minimum. The Government must ensure that no public money will be handed out to companies that disregard workers’ rights. They should also go further and introduce legislation as soon as possible to ban fire and rehire completely, once and for all. Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government are refusing to do so and are continuing to let down British workers?
The Conservatives’ flagship tutoring programme has been a disaster. It has failed our children, it has wasted millions of pounds of public money, and last month it had reached just a third of the promised 2 million courses. Today, the Government have sneaked out, in a written statement, the fact that they will be sacking the private provider to which they outsourced the programme. Labour’s ambitious plan for recovery would deliver tutoring, breakfast and after-school clubs and mental health counsellors in every school, supporting every child to learn, play and develop. Could we have an urgent statement in the House from the Education Secretary about why, under this Government, the future of our children’s education seems to be nothing more than an afterthought?
The majority of households in the UK will see a £1,300 average year-on-year increase in their bills by October. Some 6.5 million households across the country face fuel poverty, yet the Government refuse to act. Labour has put forward a proposal for a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producers, which would cut household energy bills by up to £600, helping households that need it most—including constituents of Conservative Members, who might want to listen to them. Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government are happy to keep raising taxes for hard-working families, but refuse to raise them for oil and gas companies?
The Chancellor has handed 15 tax rises to working people. For every £6 that this Tory Government have taken, they are giving only £1 back, right when working families are feeling the pinch the most. British people are facing the worst fall in living standards on record. Prices are rising in supermarkets, at petrol pumps and on our electricity bills. At the worst possible time, the Government are choosing to put up national insurance contributions for millions of working people. Could the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to come to this Chamber and explain to the people of this country why, unlike the Labour party, the Tories are not on their side?

Mark Spencer: The hon. Lady pointed out that we would be opposite each other again for the pre-Adjournment debate. I am not sure whether the word that she used was “jewel” or “duel”. I look forward to whichever it turns out to be, but it certainly feels like a duel this morning. The hon. Lady is back with a vengeance, and it is good to see her in her place.
The hon. Lady began by asking about a COP15 debate. That is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. The Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), said he wanted to  have that debate, and there will be an opportunity to reschedule it at some point in the near future. We will try to work with the Chair of the Committee to deliver it.
The hon. Lady went on to talk about defence, and about defence spending. I hope she will recognise that we are the biggest spenders on defence in Europe. We are the second largest contributor to NATO, after the United States. We are exceeding the 2% GDP target. We have committed ourselves to £24 billion of increased defence spending over the next four years. We are world leaders in defence spending, and our armed forces are recognised around the world as the highest-quality armed forces available to any nation on this earth. That is a record of which to be enormously proud, and it is being demonstrated in Ukraine, whose defence services are making use of UK tech as we speak.
The hon. Lady then raised the subject of P&O. As she will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was at the Dispatch Box yesterday explaining how he was going to deal with what was no less than a brazen breaking of employment law on the part of the chief executive. The way in which P&O has treated its own staff can only be condemned as despicable, and my right hon. Friend has urged it to reconsider, but yesterday he set out a nine-point plan consisting of a series of commitments to protect seafarers in the future. I should be happy to read it to the House, but it is available in Hansard. My right hon. Friend should be commended for the action that he is going to take.
When it comes to education, I think we should recognise that progress has been made, but there is further progress to come. We should be proud of and support the £5 billion education recovery fund and the schools White Paper, but even the Secretary of State for Education will acknowledge that there is more to be done, and I think that if the hon. Lady keeps an eye on the Dispatch Box she will see, in the near future, the Secretary of State announce action to continue the improvement in our education services.
The hon. Lady finished by talking about the cost of living and the challenges that we face. She will know that, given what is happening in Ukraine and its impact on global energy markets, a huge ripple is taking place in the value of energy across the world. We are well aware of that, which is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood here last week and set out his plans to try to help hard-working people and their families. Taking 5p off fuel duty was a big step—it means £5 billion a year less tax—and support is being provided through other mechanisms as well.
However, the best way out of poverty is through work. The fundamental difference between us and the Opposition is that we believe in a hand up while they believe in a handout. The best way for people to escape from poverty is by working and being able to keep more of their income and pay less tax, and the way in which we are making that possible means that those with the broadest shoulders carry the burden of taxation.
The hon. Lady wants us to impose a windfall tax on energy companies. Those companies are already paying 40% tax, which is nearly double what other sectors pay. There are 200,000 people employed in the sector. A windfall tax would disincentivise companies from making investments and push up the cost of energy, and the lowest-paid and most vulnerable people would find themselves picking up the tab. The Chancellor of the  Exchequer has ensured that the lowest paid will be taken out of tax altogether or will pay less tax, and I think that that is fair.

Iain Duncan Smith: I want to raise an issue affecting my local area. It involves the North London Waste Authority and the unwanted building of a huge incinerator in Edmonton. Not a single Member of Parliament in the area, Labour or Conservative, actually wants the incinerator, and we do not need it and the fumes that it will emit.
The key factor is the existence of all the criteria that would normally cause the Government to haul in a project. The cost of this project has doubled from £600 million to £1.2 billion; this is meant to be a competitive bid, but that is not the case because the same organisation is still going to be involved; and, finally even the chief executive of that organisation now says that this is excessive and unnecessary.
Given the latest information that the chief executive of the North London Waste Authority has received a salary increase from £300,000 to more than £600,000, it is clear that the organisation is out of control. It will not tell us what remuneration its officials—who are councillors—are receiving.
Why is it that not a single Government Department is prepared to stand up, haul this project in and call it to account, as would be done in the case of any other such project? People are burning public money, literally, on projects that are not wanted by the public and will pollute the atmosphere. Given the COP26 issues, why is that still happening, and may we have a debate about it now?

Mark Spencer: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. I note that he secured a Westminster Hall debate on it in February. I am sure that local taxpayers will be very concerned about what he has reported to the House, and I shall be happy to take it up with Ministers on his behalf after this session.

Pete Wishart: In view of the dramatic return of partygate, may we have a debate on what criminality actually is? I know it seems absurd to have to ask such a question, but I think we need to clear up this confusion. I may be being a bit naive here, but I think most people believe that criminality constitutes receiving a fine for breaking the law of the land after the conclusion of a police investigation. It seems that only No. 10 and the Prime Minister are unsure whether that central principle of law is actually the case. I do not know what it is about the issuing of 20 fines to different people that they find so difficult to understand, but perhaps we could have a debate to discover exactly what is going on. What with the Prime Minister being at odds with the Justice Secretary on this simple issue, the Government are now beginning to look singularly absurd.
Perhaps, on the same day, we could have a debate about the ministerial code and what happens if a Prime Minister breaks it. There seems to be some uncertainty about that as well. In December, the Prime Minister told the House that there were no parties and no rules were broken; now we find that 20 fines were issued to  people yesterday. I think we all know that this is closing in on the Prime Minister, but we need to establish the clear principle that if a Minister breaks the ministerial code, that Minister walks.
Today the Government are ending free covid tests, just as infection rates and hospitalisations go through the roof—and God knows how many MPs are suffering from covid this week, although it is good to see the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) back in her place. I am sure she will testify that it is a bit more than a little cold, despite what Conservative Members like to say.
This is a covid tax on the poor, which will only assist the further spread of the disease. This Government have been simply woeful on COVID, but now they are being just plain negligent. May we have a debate in preparation of what more misery we can now expect?
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, the staff of the House and everyone who supports and serves us a good Easter break? I say to you all, “Enjoy yourselves, please make sure you have a covid-free break, and I will see you back, fit and healthy, in a couple of weeks.”

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. It is good to see him back in his place after his brief absence last week. He asks for a debate on the challenges that I think he referred to as “partygate”. I thought he might ask for a debate on mask wearing, because it would appear that the SNP has one rule in Scotland and another rule in London, given that the leader of his party turned up in London to a service at Westminster Abbey and felt it unnecessary to wear a mask in England, although in Scotland, apparently, she does have to wear one. I am not quite sure whether coronavirus is more dangerous in Scotland than it is in England, but I think the question of whether one should wear a mask in one’s own country but not down in London would be worthy of debate.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the ministerial code. The rules around the ministerial code are absolutely clear and laid out, and Ministers should follow the ministerial code. There is no debate on that matter, and that is what happens. He also mentioned covid. It is a tribute to the Government that, although cases of covid are high, hospitalisations from it are much lower. That is because of our exemplary vaccination programme, which means that we are no longer in danger of hospitalisation. The great British public should be given the responsibility to make decisions, and I trust the public to make responsible decisions. If you are ill with covid, you should remain at home and isolate so that you do not inadvertently spread the disease. That is the way we should proceed from now on.

Theresa Villiers: Can we have a debate on the shocking findings of the Ockenden report? Two years ago I wrote to the Health Secretary expressing the concern of a doctor in my constituency that an ideological attachment to so-called natural childbirth was jeopardising safety. I think we need a debate to see how great a role that problem played in the disasters that occurred in Telford.

Mark Spencer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State made a statement yesterday on this matter. I pay tribute not only to my right hon.  Friend but to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who have been vociferous in their pursuit of this matter. Some of the report’s findings were frankly shocking. The good news is that things have now moved forward at the Shrewsbury hospital within the trust, and people can have confidence in maternity services across England. That is why we have announced a further £127 million of funding for maternity services, so that people can have confidence in those services.

Nick Smith: I welcome the Financial Conduct Authority’s redress scheme proposed this morning. It goes a fair way towards putting things right for the thousands of British Steel workers who were ripped off by pension sharks in 2017. The average loss was £60,000. However, can we have a Government statement from the Treasury on why it has taken the FCA five years to grip this scandal properly?

Mark Spencer: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for pursuing that issue on behalf of his constituents. There are also Members on the Conservative Benches who have been vociferous in pursuing the rights of employees in the steel industry. I know that he will continue to pursue the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that he gets answers for his constituents, and I shall write to the Chancellor on his behalf to ensure he gets answers to his questions.

Liam Fox: May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as chairman of the Abraham Accords Group? Might my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on security in the Gulf and particularly on the role of Iran in destabilising the region? We have seen Iranian-backed Houthis carry out drone attacks on our friends in the UAE and missiles being launched into Saudi Arabia. We must not allow the dreadful events in Ukraine to distract us from the risks being faced by our allies elsewhere from a regime in Tehran with an abhorrent human rights record and a record of trying to destabilise its political and geographical neighbours.

Mark Spencer: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that Ukraine is not the only area in which our armed forces and security services are engaged. The Foreign Office is very much aware of the challenges in the middle east that he makes reference to, and he can rest assured that both the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence will continue to monitor Iran’s activities. We need to send the strongest message to all regimes around the world that they should be as fair and open as they can be, and that we will not tolerate interference in other states.

Kim Leadbeater: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) has already said, across the House we are all aware of how huge price increases in energy are impacting our constituents, and I believe the Government could be doing far more to help. However, public services and businesses are also impacted by these significant price rises. Local leisure centres, schools and businesses in my constituency have contacted me about having to make the impossible choice between delivering their services and paying their bills. Can we therefore have a debate in  Government time on the impact of energy prices on public services and businesses, and on the Government’s so-far invisible strategy to support them?

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is a little misleading—if I can say that—to say that the cost of living support that the Government are delivering is invisible. We have already offered £22 billion-worth of support for this financial year and the next. We are boosting income for the lowest paid and helping families with their household bills, but we are supporting businesses as well. Cutting 5p off fuel duty is a huge support to those businesses that have to transport their goods around. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also supported businesses through the rates programme, and we are making sure that many small and medium-sized enterprises are taken out of local rateable values completely. That is support being given directly to the small businesses that I recognise are making a huge contribution to the economy and supporting people by employing our constituents.

Bob Blackman: The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), was taken unwell this morning, so on behalf of the Committee I would like to say to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) that we are negotiating with the sponsor of the motion and debate on COP26 and we are hoping to arrange a date soon. To my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I should like to say that as the business for the week commencing 25 April looks a bit light, we are ready to supply proposals for debates if requested.
Can I also ask for a debate on efficiencies and effectiveness in local government? I, along with many of my colleagues, spend about 50% of my casework time dealing with the failure of my local council to provide a decent service, but this one tops the bill. I contacted Harrow Council on 15 October 2020 about an urgent disrepair problem in a council property provided to one of my constituents. Being diligent, I followed this up with the council no fewer than 19 times, and I was eventually promised, almost in blood, that I would get a reply by last Monday. I am still waiting. It is quite clear that on 5 May the voters of Harrow will get the opportunity to put in a Conservative-led council, rather than this inefficient and ineffective Labour-run council.

Mark Spencer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We wish the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee a speedy recovery and hope he will soon be back in his place. We look forward to the COP15 debate, whenever it can be rescheduled.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to his local council. That sounds like a shocking litany of irresponsible—or lack of response, shall we say. I am sure he will continue to hold the council’s feet to the fire, and in raising his question this morning, I am sure he will have contributed to its embarrassment. I look forward to a Conservative council in Harrow in the near future.

Clive Efford: Tomorrow our constituents face a 54% increase in their fuel bills as the cap increases, but many of my constituents living in new developments at Kidbrooke are on district heating schemes and the cap does not apply. They are therefore directly exposed to the market cost of fuel. Can we have a statement  when we return on the impact on those people, because they are facing huge increases in their fuel bills, way above those where the cap applies? This is creating financial difficulties for them, and they have not been dealt with or given any assistance by the Government.

Mark Spencer: To say that there is no assistance is, frankly, wrong, but I acknowledge that there are challenges with local heating systems, which I will raise directly with the relevant Minister on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf. Given the uncertainty and challenges of the global energy market that we currently face not only in the United Kingdom but across the whole of Europe and North America, the Government are stepping in to try to help people who are facing those challenges. That is why we have introduced the £9.1 billion energy rebate scheme, and we are also increasing the value of the warm home discount to £150 in October and providing £1 billion through the household support fund, as well as winter fuel payments. All of that is assistance to his and my constituents in what is a very challenging situation globally, but I will raise the matter that he raised with the relevant Minister.

Felicity Buchan: The Labour party accepted the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry that it should publish all meetings between the shadow Cabinet and senior media executives and media owners. It has not done so since 2016. The Government publish them on a quarterly basis. May we have a debate on the lack of transparency on the relations between the Labour party and media executives and its trade union paymasters?

Mark Spencer: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this important issue. It is important to the reputation of our democracy that we in this House are as transparent as possible with regard to those we meet, and when. It is staggering that the Labour party has failed to declare any meetings over the past six years. However, I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and believe that no such meetings have taken place. Perhaps the media have reached the same conclusion about the Labour party as the electorate did in December 2019.

Wera Hobhouse: We are six months into the biggest energy crisis in generations and it is five months since COP26, but reportedly the Prime Minister is still arguing with his Chancellor about what to do about the future of our energy. Businesses and households are calling out for certainty and clarity. Where is the energy strategy? Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to bring forward the energy strategy alongside a statement to the House?

Mark Spencer: The energy strategy is imminent. It is coming very soon—the hon. Lady will not have to wait very long. I would hope, however, that she recognises that the way to deal with the challenges of a fluctuating global energy market is to have a balanced approach to our energy supply. We should also make use of our own hydrocarbons in the North sea, as we move towards renewable resources, and we should invest in nuclear energy at the same time, to make sure that we have a balanced supply of energy in the United Kingdom.

Andrew Selous: May we have an urgent debate on the further imposition of sanctions on members of the Russian armed forces? Although I am very pleased that Mikhail Mizintsev has been sanctioned this morning—he perfected his barbaric practices in pummelling Aleppo to the ground and is now doing the same to Mariupol—does the Leader of the House share my determination that sanctions must go down the ranks of the Russian military to mid-ranking and junior officers, and even to non-commissioned officers, if necessary, who are engaging in the barbaric practices of shelling residential areas to the ground?

Mark Spencer: Although I cannot comment on the specific case raised by my hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister visited the International Criminal Court at The Hague earlier this month to offer practical support from the UK for investigating and prosecuting war crimes. As well as extra funding, that includes police and military analysis, specialist IT and legal expertise. The UK is also bringing together a broad coalition of countries to support those war crime investigations. The measures we have taken reflect the horror and the gravity of what Putin and his regime have done, violating the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation with an illegal and unjustified invasion. Anyone participating in that war should be under no illusion that the west will hold them to account for the decisions they make, and those generals and soldiers who are committing crimes will be held to account in the very near future.

Zarah Sultana: This week I was very proud to join a local group, Coventry City of Languages, in Speaker’s House, where they were awarded the Your UK Parliament award for community campaign of the year. I first met the teachers back in 2020, before the campaign was formed, and have been proud to see them go from strength to strength. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Anna Grainger, Victoria Seaton and the rest of the team, and will he give Government time to discuss the benefits of language learning and the woeful lack of funding for foreign language teaching, especially in our primary schools?

Mark Spencer: I join the hon. Lady in commending her constituents for the great work they are doing. Speaking a second or third language is a great skill for life and can really assist young people not only in their careers but in travel around the world, and anything that the Government and we as the House of Commons can do to support people in learning a second or third language should be commended.

Nicholas Fletcher: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on issues affecting men and boys, I managed to secure a short Westminster Hall debate on the need for a men’s health strategy. With nearly one in five men not making retirement, 13 men committing suicide every day, one man dying of prostate cancer every 49 minutes and 6,000 men dying an alcohol-related death each year, does the Leader of the House agree that this is a serious issue and that the need for a men’s health strategy should be debated in this Chamber as soon as possible?

Mark Spencer: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing his Westminster Hall debate last week. There are important health issues affecting men across the  country. We know that some men are less likely than women to seek help or to talk about suicidal feelings, and some can be reluctant to engage with health or other support services. My hon. Friend asks for a debate in the Chamber. He will be aware that Government time for general debates is at a premium and that Government time is primarily used for legislation, but I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate. He will also have the opportunity to raise the matter at Health questions on 19 April.

Neale Hanvey: I welcome the Leader of the House’s comments a moment ago on transparency. The Government claim that there is transparency on covid contracts, but this morning, as has happened many times before, serious questions grounded in hard evidence were answered with vague and opaque platitudes. It is time for this Government to truly act in the public interest and arrange a debate in Government time to address the management of PPE contracts, and to properly account for the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that the National Audit Office reports is still at risk. This House must be allowed to fulfil its responsibility to the public and scrutinise how such vast sums of public money have been spent. Will the Leader of the House consider arranging a debate on such issues?

Mark Spencer: I shall try not to be vague, which the hon. Gentleman has implied. To be absolutely clear, where fraud has taken place, it should be fully investigated. The Government will fully investigate any fraud that has taken place, and we will make every effort to recover those funds that were lost or that were, in effect, stolen by a fraudulent bid.
In the middle of a global pandemic, PPE supplies were very short globally. It was almost impossible to get supplies of masks, aprons and gloves, as the whole world was scrambling to get them, and at the time Members from across the House were suggesting that they could be sourced from all sorts of bizarre places, so I think it is a little bit tough to sit in the cold light of day and make judgments in hindsight of decisions made, and I think we should give the benefit of the doubt to those officials who were trying very hard to protect us.

Anna Firth: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the capacity and waiting times at accident and emergency departments? Every week since I was elected, I have been contacted by constituents who have waited for hours in our local A&E to be triaged and treated. The reasons for that are complex and multiple, and that is why I believe a debate in Government time is needed. We can all do our part to help, however. To do my bit, I am taking part in a sponsored abseil down the 154-foot tower of Southend University Hospital to support a cancer ward, and I would be delighted if my right hon. Friend wanted to join me.

Mark Spencer: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to the attention of the House the gravity of the situation at Southend University Hospital. Indeed, it is for that reason that I am unable to join her in her noble pursuit to abseil down the tower; I fear it would add to the existing A&E pressures at the hospital. She raises an important matter on waiting times at A&E, and the Government are clear that long waits for admission are  not acceptable. The NHS is executing a range of actions across urgent primary and community care to better manage emergency care demand and capacity. Last year also saw a significant investment in the upgrade of A&E facilities, including building work to boost capacity and reduce overcrowding, funded by £450 million of investment.

Taiwo Owatemi: Coventry’s time as city of culture will come to a close this May. It has encouraged thousands of young people to celebrate Coventry’s rich heritage; a whole host of art installations have sprung up across our city from incredible local artists; and inclusive online concerts, films and other events have drawn in more than 260,000 people so far. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all who have made this a truly wonderful experience? I encourage as many people as possible from across the House to come and visit Coventry this recess, as we are still celebrating our city of culture. Can we have Government time to discuss the importance of continuing this wonderful legacy?

Mark Spencer: The hon. Lady is a walking advert for Coventry and all that is great about it, and I commend her for drawing the attention of the House to all that Coventry offers. I know that being a city of culture brings huge benefit to the tourism industry. A number of towns are bidding to be the next one, and the winner will be announced very soon. I join her in encouraging people from across the country to consider Coventry as a destination this Easter.

Robbie Moore: Across Keighley and Ilkley, we are being inundated with new housing development, and many new housing applications are being made. That is not being helped by Bradford Council’s draft local plan, which will add another 3,000 new homes in my local community. I think of pressures in Long Lee and in Silsden, where our district councillor, Councillor Rebecca Whitaker, is doing a fantastic job of fighting a local planning application that is having a huge impact on local infrastructure in our schools and GP surgeries. Can we have a debate in Government time to explore how we can give local key service providers, particularly our schools and our NHS—our GP surgeries—more say in and influence over housing policy and planning applications?

Mark Spencer: Along with Rebecca Whitaker, my hon. Friend is a huge advocate for Keighley and on the challenges of green belt development. It is vital that the Government and local authorities get the balance right between supplying enough homes for the next generation to move into and protecting our green spaces. I am sure it is something that is worthy of further debate, and I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for an Adjournment debate to make sure he has another opportunity to highlight the challenges in his area.

Kirsty Blackman: Energy prices are going to skyrocket overnight, so today is meter reading day. Martin Lewis and Which? have both been encouraging people to submit meter readings today. It turns out that the websites of E.ON, EDF, Scottish Power, Shell, British Gas, SSE, Octopus Energy, Sainsbury’s Energy and Bulb are crumbling under the pressure of trying to deal with all these meter reading submissions.  Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging people who cannot submit their meter readings today to ensure they have an accurate record of their meter reading by taking a photo of it or attempting to email it to their provider, so that when the prices go up tomorrow, they are charged the correct rate up until today?

Mark Spencer: The hon. Lady should be commended for what is a very good idea. I support her suggestion and I think it is worthy of publicity. I encourage all Members from across the House to highlight it on their social media platforms, and I encourage people in those circumstances to do as she suggests. I think it is a very good idea, and she should be commended for it.

Katherine Fletcher: Last week, I had a very moving meeting with Mark and Tom Pegram, father and brother to Sam Pegram, the humanitarian who was lost in the 737 Max air crash, Ethiopian Airlines flight ET 302, in March 2019. Their grief is understandable and still raw, but unfortunately it is being compounded by the delay in the UK coroner’s inquest process because the Ethiopian authorities have yet to publish the air crash investigation report. Will the Leader of the House work with his colleagues in Government to give any assistance needed to the Ethiopian authorities to get that report published forthwith, so that Mark and Tom, and other British families, can get the closure of a coroner’s inquest?

Mark Spencer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, and I offer my sincere condolences to the families of Sam Pegram and the eight other British nationals who died on board flight ET 302. I appreciate that this continues to be a difficult time, following the third anniversary, as families still await answers over what happened on that day. The Government cannot interfere in the legal matters of another country, but I understand that the families are pursuing this matter through their local lawyer, who will be best placed to advise them. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing this matter to the attention of the House, and I shall write to the Foreign Secretary on her behalf.

Diana R. Johnson: Peter Hebblethwaite shows no sign of resigning, despite admitting to Select Committees that he flagrantly broke the law. I know that the Secretary of State for Transport has written to the Insolvency Service seeking the disqualification of Mr Hebblethwaite as a company director, but will the Government consider holding a debate on what further action might be appropriate for company directors who behave with such disregard for workers, and whether we need to set in train other legal routes to ensure that no company director ever behaves in such a way again?

Mark Spencer: The hon. Lady is right to highlight Peter Hebblethwaite’s actions, and she joins the Secretary of State for Transport in calling for him to go. The way in which he has treated his staff and the employees of P&O is outrageous and, frankly, abhorrent. I think the topic is worthy of debate, and I am sure that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee would  give due consideration to that, given the number of Members from across the House who have an interest in debating it further.

Greg Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the news that six NHS hospitals are set to trial pheasant, partridge and venison on their menus is extremely welcome, and will he join me in congratulating British Game Assurance on its work to help to make that possible? Can we have a debate on the value of game as healthy, nutritious, flavoursome and sustainable meat that more parts of the public sector should seek to procure for menus in schools, hospitals and beyond?

Mark Spencer: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to that fact. British game is, as he says, nutritious and of good value. It also has a very high welfare background, in that all the animals that reach the food chain are wild animals that lived in the natural environment. He is right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that game is now available in our NHS.

Daisy Cooper: I regret to inform the Leader of the House that I have spent four months trying to get answers to two questions from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I have been asking why the Government insist on using out-of-date population figures to determine housing targets when the targets for St Albans would halve, and those for many other areas of Hertfordshire would be reduced, if up-to-date housing figures were used. On the green belt, I have asked the Government why they have not acted on the statement from the planning inspector that he cannot give any weight to the protection of the green belt because there are no green belt protections in the national planning policy framework. I have held a Westminster Hall debate, I have written to the Government a number of times and I have tabled several written parliamentary questions, but the Government continue to sidestep the issue. Can he give me some advice on how I can get answers to those questions, and will he consider a debate in Government time on how we can make sure up-to-date figures are used and put some green belt protections into the planning framework?

Mark Spencer: I should make it clear that Departments have a responsibility to respond in a timely manner to questions from MPs. I will assist the hon. Lady in pursuing the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to get answers to her questions and write on her behalf to the Secretary of State.

James Davies: As we recover from the pandemic, rail services, particularly in north Wales, need to be scaled back up. Transport for Wales services remain less frequent than usual, while direct Avanti West Coast services to London Euston are running just twice per day. That is set to increase to four from May, but it is well below the six per day that there were before the pandemic. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the need for services not only to return to normal, but to exceed that in north Wales, to help drive investment in the regional network?

Mark Spencer: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this matter. These challenges are best served by cross-border co-operation. This subject is worthy of further debate, and I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate at his earliest convenience so that he can highlight the challenges his constituents are facing and draw the House’s attention to where cross-border co-operation will assist and solve those challenges.

Andrew Slaughter: For more than 100 years, Shepherd’s Bush market has served the people of west London and beyond. For most of that time, the Horada family have been one of its leading traders. Yesterday, James Horada stepped down as chair of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants Association, after 16 years in which he faced down repeated attempts by developers to destroy the market, winning a public inquiry and finally persuading the Lord Chief Justice and the Court of Appeal to save this unique institution. I am sure that the Leader of the House will wish to join me in congratulating James and his able successor, the vice-chair Peter Wheeler. Will he also find time for a debate on how we can ensure the future of our historic markets, many of which are, sadly, under threat?

Mark Spencer: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the benefit of markets up and down the country; they benefit communities and are a rich resource for those communities to be able to access. I join him in praising James Horada for the work he has done over 16 years—that is a huge innings, and he should be praised for that. I wish him well in his retirement and hope that Peter Wheeler will continue the great work and that that market will remain as a community asset for many people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Florence Eshalomi: On 29 March 2021, I joined the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice outside St Thomas’ Hospital in my constituency, where it started its campaign to paint hearts on the walls. I met Fran Hall, whose husband Steve Mead sadly died in October 2020, just three weeks after they were married. This Tuesday marked the first anniversary of that wall, and I want to pay tribute, as I hope the Leader of the House will also do, to the many families and volunteers who have continued to maintain it over the year, taking time to repaint those hearts, which mean so much to people and are a remembrance of the family members they have lost. Those hearts represent constituents from all over the country and the family we have lost. Will the Leader of the House guarantee Government time for us to debate how we can make this wall permanent?

Mark Spencer: The hon. Lady raises a very important issue. No one could be unmoved by seeing the tributes just across the river at the wall of hearts, and this is worthy of further consideration. In my constituency, I was able to attend the unveiling of a small memorial at Gedling crematorium to the people of Gedling and Nottingham who had lost their lives to covid. As a society, we should not forget the huge losses that we have experienced, and she is right to draw the House’s attention to this. I will make sure I write to the relevant Ministers and pass on her comments.

Kirsten Oswald: One of the most regular causes of complaints that I receive is the failure of services that have been outsourced to  private companies, including Capita, which now administers the Royal Mail pension scheme; it seems to do that very badly, if the case of my constituent whose pension should have been paid from September 2021 but still has not been is anything to go by. So may we have a debate in Government time about how the Government are supposed to hold these contractors to account, particularly when the systems are patently not working?

Mark Spencer: If the hon. Lady writes to me with the specific details about her constituent, I will make sure—[Interruption.] She says from a sedentary position that she already has. I will make sure that she gets a rapid response. I understand the stress that people undergo when they are concerned about whether they will get their pension, which they have rightly paid into. I will make sure that she gets a speedy answer.

Matt Western: Will the Leader of the House grant time for us to have a debate about the delivery of not only housing but infrastructure, and the timeliness of that delivery? I am sure that in his constituency, as in the constituencies of Members from across the House—we heard about this from the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore)—there is a real problem in this area. In my constituency, we were promised sustainable communities, but what we have is housing with no pedestrian access or egress off estates, no buses serving those estates, insufficient spaces at the local GPs and no spaces in our schools. So will the Leader of the House grant us time for a very welcome debate on this issue?

Mark Spencer: I am sure that such a debate would be a popular one. I am aware that a Westminster Hall debate was held earlier this week—I believe it was on Tuesday—about the provision of GP services connected to new developments. Local authorities have a huge responsibility to make sure that when they grant planning permission for new housing developments the infrastructure is put in place. Not only must there be doctors’ surgeries and dentists, but they must make sure that the schools and road networks are adequate to provide support to those new housing developments. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to apply for either a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate, where he can continue to highlight those challenges.

Fleur Anderson: You are warmly welcome to attend the Putney boat race this weekend, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Putney, we are delighted that it is returning after two years. It will be going underneath Hammersmith bridge, which has been closed to vehicles since April 2019, causing chaos, pollution and disruption across south-west London; it is a national transport route. Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on funding the restoration of Hammersmith bridge? Hammersmith and Fulham Council has done a lot, and small funding has been provided for stabilisation works, but no funding for the full restoration so that vehicles can go back across the bridge. May we have time for a debate on this subject?

Mark Spencer: I wish everyone who is participating in the Putney boat race this weekend well. I encourage the hon. Lady to continue to highlight the challenges of Hammersmith bridge and put pressure both on Hammersmith’s council and the Mayor of London to  try to help resolve these challenges, and to make sure that the situation her constituents find themselves in is resolved as soon as possible.

Jim Shannon: In Algeria, 16 churches have been forced to shut down and a further eight have had legal proceedings started against them in efforts to have them closed. The Leader of the House always responds, but will he arrange for a statement on what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of this trend? Will he make representations to counterparts through the office of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in Algeria about protecting the freedom of religion or belief of minority groups in that country, where the situation is very worrying?

Mark Spencer: I am sorry to hear about the situation in Algeria and that those from minority religions there are feeling oppressed and disenfranchised. I will make sure that the Foreign Office is aware of the matters the hon. Gentleman has raised today. He continues to be an advocate for religious freedom around the world on a weekly basis.

Alison Thewliss: May we have a debate on the dedication of volunteers to local housing associations? My constituent Charlotte Levy, the former chair of Thenue Housing, passed away recently, having dedicated more than 60 years of her life to serving the voluntary groups and committees, particularly in the Calton, where she lived. Does the Leader of the House agree that we all need more selfless community-minded activists like Charlotte?

Mark Spencer: I join the hon. Lady in not only congratulating Charlotte but highlighting the great work that housing associations do up and down this country. They are a great resource for not only advice but support for tenants and residents throughout the country. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that and I join her in congratulating her constituent.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Leader of the House for answering business questions.

Points of Order

Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Two years ago, the Home Secretary met me, the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the deputy mayor for policing and undertook to deport those members of the Rochdale grooming gang who were not British nationals. For two years, I have been trying to get an update. I raised the issue on the Floor of the House in Home Office questions in November, and the Home Secretary indicated to a junior Minister that she would meet me. Having had no meeting, I raised the issue again in Home Office questions in February, and the Home Secretary again undertook to meet me. I have now had a response from the Home Secretary’s office to say that she is too busy and to ask me to meet a junior Minister.
I am not asking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say whether the Home Secretary is embarrassed, as I am sure she is, about her failure to deliver, or whether she is sufficiently in charge of her Department, which she is clearly not—those are not questions for you—but there is a real issue if any Government Minister gives an undertaking to any hon. Member that they will meet but then ultimately refuses that meeting. That is not accountability, which is what Parliament is about. How can you help me, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my pursuit of a real answer to the needs of the women who are the victims of child abusers?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. It is absolutely right to say that if a particular Minister commits personally to meeting a Member, that Minister should deliver on that commitment. It certainly sounds as though in this case the hon. Gentleman has being kept waiting for too long for the meeting that was promised. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will act on this exchange and make sure that the hon. Gentleman is offered a meeting with the Home Secretary very soon.

Rachel Hopkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his opening speech in Tuesday’s Opposition day debate, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General implied to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) that the Government could ignore the motion simply because it was proposed by the Opposition. That motion was unanimously agreed as a resolution of this House, so can you confirm from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, contrary to the Minister’s suggestion, a motion on a Humble Address is binding and that the Government would be in contempt of this House to refuse to comply with the motion?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for notice of it. As the House has agreed a Humble Address—an effective motion—that should be complied with. In other words, the Government should provide the documents that were demanded. Resolutions of this House have equal force whichever Member moves the original motion. If the only effective motions were ones moved by members of Her Majesty’s Government, Parliament would simply be, in effect, a rubber-stamping exercise and we might as well all go home. I reiterate that such motions should be complied  with. I would not want to speculate at this point about whether or not the Government intend to comply—that would be hypothetical—but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what has been said.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you help us? What is the purpose of having named day questions if one Department—the Department of Health and Social Care—consistently does not comply with the requirement to reply to those questions in a timely fashion, to which the Leader of the House referred earlier? The most recent records show that only one third of the named day questions to that Department are answered on time. I have 12 outstanding named day questions to that Department that have not yet been answered, some of which date back more than five weeks, and we are now on the last day before the recess. What can be done to enforce the rules, particularly against the Department of Health and Social Care? Many of the questions are highly pertinent to people who want information about whether or not it is safe to take the covid-19 vaccine.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. He raises an important issue that the Procedure Committee has looked at, and he might like to draw it to that Committee’s attention. He is quite right to say that the Leader of the House has indicated that Departments should answer questions in a timely fashion. We have just had business questions; it may be that the hon. Gentleman would like to raise the issue at a future session of business questions when the Leader of the House is present.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have raised the issue before—in fact, Mr Speaker granted an urgent question on it and the Minister for Health had to come and answer it—but despite all the pleas from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker in the Chair, the Department does not seem to be responding. I am a member of the Procedure Committee and the statistics to which I referred are the latest statistics reported to that Committee. The question I ask is: what can be done to enforce the rules?

Rosie Winterton: All I can say is that we have to persist, which the hon. Gentleman is clearly doing. He is not alone in his concern about this matter, as he has rightly said. I will ensure that Mr Speaker is aware of this comments. As I said, he might, as a member of the Procedure Committee, like to take the issue back to that Committee as well.

Layla Moran: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will no doubt be aware that journalists often call the day before a recess the “taking out the trash day”. This morning, we found out that the Government have announced a new policy and consultation, not on trash but on sewage and river pollution. They have not come to the House and, as far as I am aware, they are not making a statement, which means they get to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the matter for weeks.
A plan to deal with sewage is critical: water companies have admitted to discharging raw sewage into our rivers and estuaries more than 372,000 times in the past year.  It has happened for 1,000 hours in Whitney, just upstream from my constituency, and for 100 hours in Botley and North Hinksey—and that is in my patch alone. I know the issue worries Members from all parties, so are you aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, of any statement that might come today? If there will not be one, how can we encourage the Government to come to the House and answer questions?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. As she says, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has today published a consultation that is open until Thursday 12 May. Mr Speaker has not had an application from the Department to make an oral statement today.
I say again that the Leader of the House was present for business questions; it would have been very appropriate for the hon. Lady to raise the issue then so that she had direct access to the Leader of the House. I advise her that that would be a good way to draw attention to the point she made. Having said that, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her. I urge Members who wish to raise points of order after business questions to remember that they have the chance to raise issues directly with the Leader of the House during business questions.

Daisy Cooper: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the Government announced an end to free lateral flow tests, the Prime Minister said:
“We don’t need to keep spending at a rate of £2 billion a month, which is what we were doing in January.”
The public could be forgiven for getting the impression that the tests were costing £2 billion every month, but commentators were quick to highlight that the figure for January was probably inflated because of the requirement for people to have two negative lateral flow tests before they could leave self-isolation.
To get to the bottom of how much lateral flow tests were actually costing, I tabled two written questions to the Government to ask for the total amount that lateral flow tests were costing on a monthly basis and over a 12-month period. The Government answered, but refused to give me the data, claiming it was “commercially sensitive”.
It is outrageous that the public are being kept in the dark as to how much lateral flow tests have actually cost the public purse over the past year. I would like the Government to come clean and publish the figures. What is your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I might persuade or compel the Government to disclose to Members the figures for how much the tests have cost over the past 12 months?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. This is perhaps something that she has already raised, or will in the future, during any statements or urgent questions on the issue. She might like to go to the Table Office to see whether there are other routes that she could pursue. I am not sure whether she was indicating that confusing advice had been given to the House, or that it had not got any advice at all. If it is not getting any advice at all, she might like to go to the Table Office to ask whether there are other ways in which she might like to get this information. She might like to see whether any members  of the Health and Social Care Committee or the Public Accounts Committee would be interested in looking into this. Again, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her comments and will take back to Ministers her concern that this information is not forthcoming.

Backbench Business

Long Covid: Impact on the Workforce

Layla Moran: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of long covid on the UK workforce.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to hold this updated debate on long covid. I also thank my co-sponsors, some of whom, I am sad to say, are at home ill with covid and very much wanted to be here today. Also the fact that the debate has moved weeks has not helped. For those watching at home, I have been contacted by several Members who are very sorry that they are not able to be here. I also want to put on record my thanks to the many hundreds of people who, over the years, have contacted the all-party group on coronavirus with their personal stories, many of which are very heart warming, but also moving and worrying because it is a debilitating condition. What I say to all of them is: “We hear you, you have not been forgotten and we will continue to fight for you.”
I want to recognise the actions that the Government have taken so far. I was pleased that, after the first debate we had on the issue in January 2021, the Government made some £18.5 million available for research into long covid, including treatment, and delivered even more funding in the summer, which is incredibly welcome. In that debate, I also welcomed the new dedicated long covid clinics and the publishing of guidance to medical professionals by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and the Royal College of General Practitioners. However, despite that welcome action, it has felt, over the past eight months, that long covid has totally dropped off the radar and, on this issue, there has been very little debate.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for coming to the Chamber to answer this debate. I believe that it is the first time that the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy has answered in the Chamber on this. I will focus my remarks on the effect that long covid has had on the workforce because our belief is that this is a looming crisis that we need to think ahead about and that it would be wrong for us just to focus on the medical side— there are broader implications here.
Although there are many understandable reasons why this matter may have dropped off the radar, including the cost of living crisis and the war in Ukraine, I argue that these things are very much linked. How are we going to have a strong and productive economy if large swathes of our workforce are struggling to do the jobs that they are meant to be doing? How can we help them to recover?
Over this past year, we have had more information and learned more about long covid, although it is worth saying that there is still no cure. There are treatment plans that can help with symptoms, but the past year has been awful for many, including Andrew, a headteacher whom I spoke about in the debate a year ago, who  received multiple written warnings about his inability to do the job in the day. I went back to him and asked how he was. He said:
“I made the difficult decision to resign from my post as a headteacher, so my limited energies could focus on coming to terms with my illness rather than continuing to face dismissal from a career that I had committed the past 25 years to and one that I dearly love.”
I also got an email from Nell, one of my constituents, who is a doctor. She said:
“I adore being a hospital doctor. I love my patients and I trained for years to do this. It’s been nearly two years of struggling with my health after covid, and while I continue to slowly recover, I don’t know if I can do this much longer. I’m so very sorry—I feel that I have let you down writing this.”
To Nell, I say that I do not believe that she has let anyone down, but I think that, to an extent, the Government have let her down.

Seema Malhotra: I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for her excellent speech. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. She has raised a couple of cases that she has heard about. I have been in touch a lot with Sam, a carer in my constituency. At the very beginning when she had long covid, people did not understand the condition and it was not taken seriously, and it has affected her ability to work ever since. Does the hon. Member agree that, as well as dealing with the health side and getting more research on how the condition affects people so differently, it is important to have guidance for employers—she will probably come on to this—on how to deal with this and how to support those who may have long covid through that very difficult period? As we do not know how long the condition lasts, we need a proper long-term strategy for those who are affected and for their families.

Layla Moran: The hon. Member hits the nail on the head. People can recover, and very often do, but the way to help them do that is very badly explained to employers right now. Indeed, I will come on to talk in some detail about that.
Many people were told, especially at the beginning, that long covid was something that they were making up. They were told that it was all in their head. I have a research paper here that shows that scans have been done on people’s chests and the reason they were suffering from breathlessness was that the tissue was fundamentally damaged. This is very much a real disease, which now needs a real response.
It is not just public sector workers who have dealt with this. I spoke to Rebecca, who gave evidence to the all-party parliamentary group. She was a fitness instructor, Madam Deputy Speaker. You would think that a fitness instructor would be very healthy and would have very good lungs—before the pandemic, anyway. She used to teach 14 high-intensity classes a week and ran her own business. Now long covid means that she is in bed 60% of the time and describes being
“unable to return to work, and to be the mum, wife or friend I once was”.
It is utterly heartbreaking. We now need to accept that, if we are going to live with covid, we also have to live with long covid. In the evidence sessions that the APPG took in December and January, we heard how the condition is still severely impacting the lives and livelihoods   of people across the country. They described how the condition has left them unable to work, sometimes unable to move, forcing them into long periods of absence from work, dipping into their savings and doing anything to stay afloat—something that is much more difficult now with the cost of living crisis.
A study released this month by Queen Mary University concluded that becoming infected with covid increases the risk of economic hardship, especially if the individual develops long covid. Those individuals describe a patchwork of uneven availability when it comes to long covid clinics and many are desperate for treatment. We heard from one nurse, for example, who has spent thousands of pounds going to Germany to get treatment that she is not able to access here. Public sector workers gave their lives for us. When we were all allowed to be at home, they went in, and they are the ones, according to Office for National Statistics surveys, who have the highest prevalence of long covid. I believe that we owe them so much more than they have had so far.
Unsurprisingly, though, it is not just about public services. We have 1.4 million people across the country experiencing self-reported long covid symptoms. That is 2.4% of the population and that cuts across every single sector, not just the public sector.
In the hospitality sector, which, as the Minister will know, is already struggling, 2.6% of workers have long covid. If we take the 3 million workforce estimate from UKHospitality, that equates to 70,000 workers unable to do their jobs as they did before. In retail, it is 2.3%, which equates to just under 70,000 workers; for personal service, such as beauticians, it is a bit less at 6,000, but still 2.1%. Those are big numbers in sectors that are already struggling post pandemic and struggling with workers’ visas following Brexit. They do not need this.

Mary Glindon: I congratulate the hon. Lady and her colleagues on securing this important debate. Does she agree that it is not only the people who have had long covid who suffer, but their family members who have to care for them? My constituent Julie Wells has had a working life of nearly 40 years. Her teenage daughter, on a second dose of covid, has been left with totally debilitating symptoms and now needs constant care. Julie hopes at best to get back to part-time work, but she may not. That is a full-time person lost to the workforce because of caring for a family member.

Layla Moran: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The caring responsibilities are greatly increased, as is the prevalence in children. I was alerted by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) to a case of a parent who is asking for dispensation for her child from taking examinations because she has missed so many days of school. I am talking to the Education Secretary separately about that point, but long covid affects the entire family, not just the workforce.
Some 1.5 million people have long covid, but 989,000 people say that those long covid symptoms adversely affect their day-to-day activities and 281,000 people report that their ability to undertake their day-to-day activities had been “limited a lot”. That often means they must take part-time instead of full-time work, and sadly it often means they are unable to recover well because they are pushed to try to get back to work.
The effect on business is now being better documented. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that a quarter of UK employers cited long covid as one of the main causes of long-term sickness absence among their staff. For small businesses, the effects can be devastating. The Federation of Small Businesses has shared guidance on how to help with statutory sick pay and arranging for temporary staff cover.
However, I am concerned that the ACAS guidance right now is pretty sparse; I hope the Minister might take that up. The guidance signposts to other websites but does not make it clear that one of the most important things to do with long covid is often to let someone rest. People say “listen to your body” when it comes to medical things; I am afraid that with long covid that is actually the treatment plan.
If someone is forced or encouraged into work by their employer—often inadvertently, if they do not have proper guidance—it can set them back and cause even more problems down the line. One of our main calls is for employer guidance, but I also urge the Government to look at the ACAS website, for example, and ensure that it is clear to employers how they can help and support their employees to stay at home and rest as long as they need to, so that they come back and we do not unnecessarily lose people from the workforce.
A legal expert speaking to the APPG described the lack of access to financial support and said,
“lots of people with Long Covid find themselves starting for the very first time to be involved in the obstacle course which is our benefit system”.
It is clear that long covid is having a serious impact on the ability of our workforce to do their jobs, and we can only expect that to get worse as the virus spreads through the population again and we get more cases of long covid.
What can we do? The all-party group has released a report on long covid this week; if the Minister has not seen it, I would be happy to give him a copy. In it, we make 10 recommendations, but I will highlight just a few. First, the Government need urgently to prioritise research treatments for long covid patients. We welcome the money already committed, but we would contrast it with the United States, for example, where $1 billion has been earmarked for this, because the US recognises the effect long covid could have on its economy and sees this as an investment. I urge the UK Government to find similar ambition.
Secondly, we call for employer guidelines, set out by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Care, to help all businesses to help their employees back into work. Thirdly, we call for the UK Government to launch a compensation scheme for all those frontline workers currently living with long covid, similar to the armed forces compensation scheme.
The Minister will perhaps be aware that the process for the designation of an occupational disease is ongoing; we are hopeful that that will report back soon, and we are discussing that with the Department for Work and Pensions. That designation could be game-changing, particularly in those public sector areas where prevalence was incredibly high, such as education, the health and  social care workforce and public transport, which had some of the highest prevalences of covid, particularly at the beginning.
The Office for National Statistics survey points to where we need to look. However, I urge the Government not to wait for that designation. Many of those workers, as in my examples, have already left the professions. They are leaving the sector or deciding to take early retirement, and this is a time when our economy needs a boost. It needs those experienced workers. At the moment, we are not paying any attention to that.
The main reason we secured this debate was to urge the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to look ahead and take this seriously. The best thing we can do right now is to help hard-pressed people in the UK in our fight against Putin, against the cost of living crisis and all the rest. If we are to get our economy back on its feet, we must get our workers back at their desks. If those workers have long covid, there is currently very little out there to support them or those businesses that desperately want them back.

Rosie Winterton: I think we can get everybody in with a reasonable amount of time, if everyone limits their comments to a maximum of eight minutes.

Debbie Abrahams: Forewarned is forearmed, as they say, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I congratulate her not only on securing this debate, but on her leadership of the APPG, which she chairs exceptionally well. Today’s debate and the report that underpins it reflect that. I also thank all those who have provided evidence to the APPG, particularly on the latest report. Their stories are moving and quite shocking. In addition, I thank the secretariat, who do a fantastic job of providing support to the group.
This Covid pandemic is far from over. I am wearing my mask, and we know we have an outbreak in Parliament, with a number of MPs currently off with covid. It is far from over. We are seeing case numbers ticking upwards, hospitalisations also on the rise and, sadly, increased deaths. Once again, we have seen the burden of disease from this pandemic hitting the most deprived. Avoidable mortality is six times greater for women in deprived areas compared with the least deprived women and nearly five times greater for men. Yet we see a spring statement where the Government’s “levelling up” rhetoric has no substance. Just £1 out of the £6 from the Chancellor’s tax hike in the autumn was given back, but only 30p from that £1 went to those on the lowest incomes.
Despite the Government’s hype, their pandemic preparedness was woeful and their pandemic management in too many aspects was reckless, wasteful and even unlawful. We are now aware that, although many people may have fully recovered from the acute phase of covid infection, as the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has said, for a significant number—ONS data estimates more than 1.5 million or 2.5% of the population, although the covid tracker identifies a larger percentage—there is a longer chronic phase. That chronic phase affects children, about 34,000 at the moment, women, particularly younger  women of working age, people on low incomes, frontline workers who are more at risk of exposure, including NHS and care workers, and those with an existing activity-limiting health condition or disability.
As we have heard, symptoms vary but, in summary, they include fatigue, pain, reduced muscle strength, brain fog and so on. In my own case, I have experienced prolonged fatigue bordering on exhaustion, being awake but my brain being somehow disengaged from what I am doing and nasty bouts of nausea. I believe that covid has also exacerbated my already severe arthritis, which is partly the result of many years of running, but has got considerably worse with long covid. The pain is constant and sometimes completely debilitating, making it difficult to stand up.
What is shocking is the response to people who are experiencing long covid from their employers. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon mentioned some of these cases. I have also heard of those who have been disciplined by their employers. They were struggling with this condition and wanted to go about their everyday lives. They wanted to be at work and yet they were disciplined for not being able to be back at their desks, back in front of their class, or to see patients; we heard from a GP, as Members may remember. This very much reflects, unfortunately, the attitude of some, but it was particularly disappointing in public sector organisations, especially the NHS.
In December 2020, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence brought forward its guidelines on managing long covid. At the time, I commended it on the holistic healthcare approach taken when assessing a patient with symptoms beyond four and 12 weeks, with the emphasis on empathy and acknowledging the impact the symptoms may have on the patient’s day-to-day life, including their ability to work. This was a major step forward from previous NICE guidelines on other chronic fatigue syndrome illnesses that are similar to long covid but also affect the nervous and immune systems. The NICE guidelines on long covid were updated earlier this month, and I note that they are to be regularly updated, which we recommended, because there is emerging evidence that we must make sure is incorporated at the earliest opportunity. I hope, because I have not seen evidence of this, that investigations into the range of immune responses to covid as well as immune therapies will also be incorporated.
As I mentioned last year, the British Society for Immunology and several others have suggested that in addition to long-term damage to multiple organs, the pain, muscle weakness, fatigue and even brain fog often associated with long covid may be due to inflammatory issues associated with our immune response rather than covid itself. Covid-19, like other viruses, attacks multiple systems—respiratory, cardiovascular, nervous and gastrointestinal—as it attaches to epithelial cells that are distributed throughout the body. Our bodies’ ability to fight the virus depends on our immune systems reacting appropriately and not overreacting.
We need adequate long-term funding for long covid clinics providing evidence-based therapies—evidence is the key. I pay tribute to my colleagues in Oldham for helping over 300 long covid patients. We need to ensure that long covid is recognised as an occupational disease. There has to be a societal approach.

Chris Matheson: A couple of weeks ago, I attended with constituents the service at St Paul’s Cathedral that was organised by the cathedral, Sir Lloyd Dorfman and others to remember those who have died from coronavirus. Indeed, earlier today in business questions we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) about the very striking memorial wall in her constituency along the banks of the Thames by St Thomas’s Hospital.
I am really grateful to the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for enabling us to remind ourselves of all the other victims of covid who are, in a sense, the lucky ones who have survived but who still need our attention. I declare an interest in that a member of my immediate family suffers from long covid. If the House will bear with me, I will not actually identify who it is. For 18 months, that member of my family has not really been able to get out of bed. In terms of work, they were doing well. They are young. Their career was progressing. They were being extremely well rated at work. Almost overnight, that came to a crashing halt.
At first, when you suffer from covid, as I did at the same time as my family member, you hope and believe that although it is going to be awful and unpleasant, if you get through it, life will carry on. Then long covid starts to emerge and you do not get any better. I got better and my family member did not. It involved all the symptoms that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) described—huge tiredness, brain fog and aching limbs. At the time, the best source of advice that was available, and the best source of support, was my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). There was nothing really available. People had not come to terms with the condition and with identifying what its causes were. I pay tribute to and thank him for his work and his support to my family.
The employers of my family member were excellent, and still are. They have not been able to continue paying, but as far as they are concerned my family member is still on their books. They value the contribution that my family member has made—again, I am sorry to talk vaguely but I do not want to identify the person—and have said, “When you’re ready to come back, we’re ready to have you.” That is the kind of employment practice that we are looking for.
To echo my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), another member of my family has had to give up their job in order to be the carer. What we are looking for is some kind of hope—something to cling on to and to demonstrate progress. There has been progress. I welcome the Government’s investment of £18 million and the growing recognition of the post-viral chronic fatigue syndrome caused by coronavirus. Whenever there is a new light on this, even in scientific papers that I would not normally understand, we devour them to try to find an explanation, a cause, a hope of a cure or a treatment that will get us and my family member through this. Is it caused by scarring on the lungs? Is it caused by microclots? Is it caused by activating postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, which also bears some kind of relation to what is going on? The truth is that it could be any one of those in any number of individuals, but the absolute fatigue is the same.
I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish advising me, “If you’re feeling good, don’t do too much—don’t exert yourself.” I passed that advice on. It is also about the mental effect. When you are having a good day, you do not want to exert yourself because then you might be knocked out for the next three days, so that forces you to withdraw into yourself and not want to go out. You cannot even walk down to the shops or to the park because you are so terrified that you might then not make it through the next three days. It is about the hope and desire and almost desperation that when you have a good day and it is followed by another good day and then perhaps another, is this the beginning of the end, or even the end of the beginning? For so many, including my family member, it has not been that.
I would ask for the same consideration that has been given to my family member to be given to others—for employers to recognise that the Government have recognised this as an issue and the medical establishment has recognised it as an issue. Employers need to treat their employees who have this illness as also being victims of the pandemic, because nobody has chosen to have it. My message to those, including constituents, who still persist in saying that covid-19 is nothing—that it is just like a cold or the flu—would be something along the lines of, “Get stuffed.” There are 140,000 names on the wall outside St Thomas’s, and there are maybe a couple of hundred thousand others who are still suffering today and are desperate to get over this terrible long-term affliction and have some hope of a better life to come. I am most grateful for this debate, and most grateful, again, to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish for the support he has given to my family.

Wendy Chamberlain: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this important debate, and I must thank the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) for bringing to life the reality of many of our constituents and what they experience day to day. No one wants to be in the position of experiencing long covid, the variety of symptoms that it presents with and its timescale. With people having experienced long covid symptoms since the very first wave, it is clearly a difficult and debilitating issue for the country to deal with.
A little over a month ago, I raised the issue of long covid and employment in an Adjournment debate answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). Although I was grateful for his responses then, I would like to raise some issues again—my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has raised some of them—because there is very much more that we could be doing.
When I was here a few weeks ago, I quoted the Office for National Statistics figures, which said that in the four weeks to 2 January, 1.3 million people across the UK were suffering from long covid. That number is now estimated to be 1.5 million, and that is an incredibly fast uptick. Like others, I have recently had covid myself. I was in my bed for four days. Like the hon. Member for City of Chester said, I had a good day and I did too  much, and I ended up back in my bed again. Although thankfully for me it was mild and I seem to be very much back on my feet, there is no doubt that regardless of the strain or variant, long covid can still be the result. Even if symptoms are mild for many, the reality is that mild symptoms can still result in long covid. That number shows an incredibly fast uptick, and I stand with colleagues across the House when we say that clearly this condition will not go away, and the Government cannot close their eyes to it.
Indeed, this morning I met RESULTS UK to talk about work we have done on equitable covid access. There is no doubt that unless we do more to help developing countries and other parts of the world in managing this pandemic, we will see future variants, so the risk of long covid does not go away.
Scottish National party colleagues are always talking about Scotland’s doing a lot better compared with elsewhere, but I think the Scottish Government are letting down long covid sufferers in Scotland. As my friend the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Edinburgh West has shown, of the 119,000 long covid sufferers in Scotland, only 1,000 had been referred to the long covid support services announced by Chest, Heart & Stroke Scotland by the end of February. A recent Freedom of Information request showed that of the much-needed £10 million long covid support fund announced by the Scottish Government last September, not a single penny has been allocated or spent. I am an absolute believer in devolving decision making to the place where it can be most effective for our constituents, but the Scottish Government are failing in delivering this support, whether through inefficiencies, errors or something else. My constituents in North East Fife and my SNP colleagues’ constituents deserve better, and I hope to see better in future.
Turning to the impact of long covid on the workforce, I want to focus specifically on those who would otherwise be working, but cannot as a result of their medical condition. I thank those Members who have already highlighted where employers are trying and helping people to work. We have to acknowledge, though, that there are employers out there not doing right by constituents and members of staff, and we must work hard to ensure that they do what is required.
I do not want to repeat my entire speech from a month ago, but I will turn back to a few key points that I do not feel were properly addressed then. Will the Government commit to extending the period that claimants for benefits have to complete their application forms? For someone with a debilitating condition, particularly relapsing remitting ones, which long covid often presents itself as, four weeks is just not enough time to complete a 30-page form, including the collection of evidence. Particularly when experiencing some of those symptoms, they simply cannot concentrate for the length of time required. It takes up more time and resources to apply for a two-week extension. As I raised in the last debate, why do we not just automatically apply that extension to give people more time, rather than taking up DWP time and resources, as well as those of the person, to request that extension? It would be a cheap and straightforward step to give enough time in the first place.
Will the Government commit to consulting with disabled people, including those with long covid or other relapsing remitting conditions, such as ME, about the design of those application forms to ensure that they are properly  able to explain the impact of their conditions? I appreciate that the Minister is from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but we have had a cross-Government approach to covid, and we need a cross-Government approach to long covid, too.
Will the Government accept that the evidence of doctors and specialists who truly understand complex conditions, such as long covid, is relevant to the assessment of how people’s day-to-day lives are affected? Are they afraid that hard evidence will make it more difficult to minimise payments to those in need? Sometimes we are left to wonder just that.
Will the Government publish their decision making matrix for assessors and submit it to independent scrutiny to ensure that it allows for suitable decisions to be made relating to complex conditions such as long covid? That will also have the additional benefit of considerably increasing trust in DWP. We hear about that a lot in this Chamber, and we know it is incredibly low. Finally, will the Government provide proper training to staff in DWP centres—both front and back office—relating to assessments and work coaching? We want to ensure that they are equipped to work with claimants suffering from this new and complex condition. We have heard the variety of symptoms that it creates, but I am pretty sure that increasing people’s anxiety and stress will do nothing to help them.
Those who cannot work because of a health condition are the other side of the workforce coin. Everyone must be supported, and those who are less visible must be given the support they require.

Fleur Anderson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate, and I reiterate what has been said by many: we understand that so many people are suffering from long covid, and it must be taken seriously by the Government. We understand the impact it is having not only on those individuals and their daily lives, but the workforce. This economic issue will continue to have a serious impact, and it needs to be addressed. I reiterate the main ask that we have and that the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus has in its very helpful report on long covid, which is for employer guidelines so that people are not at the whim and the mercy of different employers regarding understanding and support for their continuing in or returning to the workforce.
I have come to this debate for two groups of people. One is all those suffering from long covid across the country—an estimated 1.5 million people, or 4.4% of the workforce. The other is those constituents who have been suffering from ME, who have learned many lessons from that and think they are relevant to working with those with long covid. They have been underestimated, not believed and not supported. When they have gone to their GP, they have been told the wrong advice—advice that makes their ME worse—and they have not been understood in schools, whether by young people or teachers, or by their employers, and they do not want anyone with long covid to go through the same. I have been disturbed to hear some of the evidence given to the APPG about workforce practices that are not conducive to helping people come back to the workforce and not the best for those individuals and our economy.
A couple of my constituents have written to me. One said:
“I have now had long covid for two years...We desperately need more investment in potential treatments. It is clear that the illness impacts the blood, autoimmune system, organs, brain and central nervous system. None of these mechanisms are being treated by the NHS so far. Treatments are being trialled in other countries.”
There are questions being asked about the trials being conducted in other countries and what more could be done here.
Another constituent said:
“I contracted covid-19 at the very end of September. Like many people, I suffered mild symptoms…2 weeks on from my initial infection I was suddenly hit with a wave of long covid symptoms and was truly horrified at what was happening to my brain and body. I felt drained and broken, and…I felt as though a foreign body was inside my head—I could no longer hold even a conversation, yet alone work. For the last 7 months I have been unable to function in any sort of capacity.”
Finally, my cousin has had long covid for a long time. He sent me a list of his symptoms: fatigue, concentration impairment, memory problems, cognitive loss, internal pain, chills and sweats, sleeplessness, sore throat, dizziness, shaking, anxiety, faintness and muscle aches. All these symptoms and impacts of long covid need to be understood by employers, by teachers and education settings, and by general practitioners and all medical workers, as recommended by the report of the APPG on coronavirus.
I underline those recommendations and ask specifically for the urgent production of clear employer guidelines, otherwise there will continue to be an employer lottery in the treatment of people with long covid as they return to work. I ask for guidance to education settings, because many students with ME found it difficult to get understanding in order to continue with their education. We cannot have the same happen for those with long covid. And I ask for clear guidance to medical practitioners on children and adults with long covid so that everyone gets the proper care, support and understanding they need so that they have hope and do not add being misunderstood to their long list of symptoms, only increasing their anxiety.
I welcome this debate, and I hope to hear some good news from the Minister about the key recommendations of this report being taken up to create a good situation for everyone with long covid.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which brings back many memories, as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said. There will be no one in the Chamber today who is not reflecting on those who have been lost over the past two years. As of last week, we have lost 3,200 people in Northern Ireland and 157,000 across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is fair to say that every family and every person has been touched by the loss of someone to covid. We cannot help but think of those numbers in this debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on setting the scene and on her hard work with others on the APPG to bring this matter to a head and to highlight and better understand these issues.
I was first elected as a councillor in 1985, and I sat in the Northern Ireland Assembly for 12 consecutive years. When I first became a Member of the Legislative Assembly in 1998, one of the biggest issues in my office was benefits, and it continues to be the biggest issue—benefits, housing and planning, in that order.
The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) talked about ME, and others will recognise this story. When I was an MLA, people with ME would come to me when they had to fill in benefits forms. They said, “My doctor says there is nothing wrong with me.” And I said, “Are there any other doctors in the practice you could speak to?” I am not disrespecting doctors, as they are excellent people, but there was no understanding of ME then. We had to fight incredible battles to get the evidence to prove these people had ME. They said they had chronic fatigue, and they did. It was called ME, and it was a disease. That supports what the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and others have said.
I am not saying anyone here is special, but I commend the hon. Member for City of Chester for his very personal story, which the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) also mentioned. His personal story resonates, and he knows that I missed him. I said to him, “We missed you. Where have you been?” He did not tell me everything he had been through, but he told me some of it—he told it all today. Others in the House have been affected, too, so we thank him for his story.
Although I have been double-jabbed and boosted, I was informed by a test after getting home from the House on an early Saturday morning that I had covid. I could not understand it, because I had no symptoms. A lady from the NHS back home phoned me on the Saturday morning and said, “Mr Shannon, how do you feel?” And I said, “Would you be shocked to know that I feel great?” She said, “Well, do you have any symptoms?” And I said, “I have no symptoms. As a matter of fact, I do not think I have felt this well in the past two weeks.” The lady could not understand it, and she told me that I was asymptomatic. I am not sure what that means—

Wendy Chamberlain: It means you are special.

Jim Shannon: My wife says I am special. I thank the hon. Lady for being most complimentary.
I did not have any symptoms, but I isolated as instructed, because I follow the rules—that is the way to do it. Although I was fortunate and blessed to be asymptomatic and not ill with covid, that is not the case for the many people who did not come through covid unscathed. We have all mentioned that 1.5 million people, 2.4% of the population of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have self-reported ongoing covid symptoms that have persisted for more than four weeks, as of 31 January 2022. Forty-five per cent of them, 685,000 people, first had or suspect they first had covid-19 at least one year previously.
I think of the wall outside St Thomas’s Hospital, where some ladies from Manchester, Liverpool and elsewhere met us two or three months ago. I was walking to the hotel one night, many months ago, and passed the wall. It is a wonderful memorial to those who have  passed on, and it is good that those ladies and others organised the wall to give people an outlet for their feelings.
Two years after the first lockdown, the long-term effects of covid are becoming clear. We need to put protection in place for employees with this long-term illness that doctors cannot pinpoint. These people struggle daily to live with it, but they are not protected by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
This Government should urgently produce guidelines for employers in both the private sector and the public sector on managing the impact of long covid among their workforce. We should also launch a compensation scheme, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon mentioned, for all frontline key workers living with long covid. I agree with the APPG that the scheme should mirror the armed forces compensation scheme, which we discussed on Monday night, recognising the relapsing nature of long covid and going beyond the existing pay scheme.
Long covid is a debilitating illness. There is a gentlemen I have known ever since he came to Ards. He is the pastor of a church in my constituency, and he almost lost his life to covid. He is 6 feet 4 inches, and this big, strapping man was brought to his knees. He walked up the hill to Stormont in the “Voice for the Voiceless” protest, and I thought he would have to lie down. Long covid has hit him incredibly hard. He has one day of good and then three days of bad. He has headaches, stomach upsets, blood clots, reduced lung function and chronic fatigue. His church is happy to allow him to rest as he needs. Had he worked for another employer—I will not mention them—he would not have that protection. We must improve the current care pathways for long covid, with a view to ensuring the healthcare system is capable of meeting current and future demand.
In a Westminster Hall debate, I mentioned a constituent who had brain fog. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), has lived that. It is important to say that one of our friends and colleagues in this House has lived with long covid and has found it incredibly difficult, as have others, to deal with. You are not far from our thoughts—

Eleanor Laing: He is not far.

Jim Shannon: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am probably getting carried away in the emotion of the occasion.
Has the Minister’s Department been able to collect the data on those with long covid? I want to see flexibility for those who are in full-time employment and employment guidelines, to which the hon. Member for Putney referred. I think all hon. Members present want to see them.
Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether the lessons have been learned from covid-19. As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, other diseases will come along and we must be prepared. What we learn from this disease will make us smarter for the next one. I put on record, because it is important when we are talking about these things, how well the Government reacted with the compensation schemes for businesses and the covid-19 vaccine. Those are the positives that gave us heart when we were down in the dumps.
Roughly 4% of the UK’s workforce has had long covid and 82 million work days were lost due to long covid absence in NHS England between March 2020 and September 2021. The real figure may be higher as it was not classified as a reason for absence at the start of the pandemic. It is clear that the effect on business is real, which is why we are having this debate, and that there must be structures in place to deal with it.
Again, I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and all hon. Members for their contributions. I look forward to the contributions from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. The Minister is a friend to us all and I look forward to hearing what he says.

Marion Fellows: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and the hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talked about staff being disciplined because they have long covid. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) gave a personal testimony and explained much more about how it affects families in their entirety. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about application forms, which are the bane of all our existence. If someone is not well, they become far more difficult. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) raised the idea of employer guidelines. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave his unique take on it, mentioned his wife and family, and brought a personal touch to the debate.
The scale of long covid cannot be underestimated, as we have heard, and has a significant impact on the UK workforce, especially key workers. The ONS’s latest monthly estimates show that over the four-week period ending 31 January, an estimated 1.5 million people across the UK—2.4% of the population—self-reported experiencing long covid. That included 119,000 folk in Scotland.
That data shows that long covid symptoms that persist for longer than four weeks appear to have a higher prevalence in adults between the ages of 35 and 49. A survey last month by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which has already been referred to, found that a quarter of UK employers cited long covid as one of the main causes of long-term sickness absence among staff. These are things that we are having to deal with. Key workers appear to be more at risk of long covid, which must be looked at.
We are still learning about the true impact of long covid on an individual’s physical and mental health. We know what the most common symptoms are, but we still do not understand the long-term issues. The CIPD report points out that, as it is a new condition, people sometimes do not know that they have it and it takes a long time for them to be given a diagnosis. There is a double burden of uncertainty regarding how best people with long covid can navigate their work, which affects sickness absence and their return to work.

Wendy Chamberlain: Briefly, on that point, the fact that first wavers with long covid did not necessarily have a covid test is a key issue. The Department for  Work and Pensions and the Government should look at that. When GPs are looking at a list of symptoms that can only be long covid, there should be an acceptance that that is what people are suffering from.

Marion Fellows: I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. Hon. Members have already spoken about ME, which is non-specific and can sometimes be difficult to diagnose. The main issue that I would raise in that regard is that people should be believed.
Support is already being delivered across Scotland for those suffering from long covid and the Scottish Government are committed to doing more. They recognise and acknowledge the impact that long covid can have on the health and wellbeing of those affected and have encouraged all employers to apply fair work principles and a flexible approach to dealing with the impacts of covid-19 to protect the health and wellbeing of the workforce.
In the event that NHS Scotland staff are absent due to covid, current temporary measures ensure that they are paid as if they are at work and that they are not subject to corresponding sickness absence triggers. The Scottish Government continue to support NHS colleagues with the provision of those temporary sickness absence measures in the event that they contract covid-19.
Again, the Scottish Government have a long covid strategic network that helps to bring together clinical experts, NHS boards and lived experience. For any disease or issue, lived experience can give those who are trying to help a real experience of what needs to be done. Following analysis and planning by the strategic network to identify where additional resource is needed, the first tranche of funding to NHS boards will be given early in the next financial year, which starts tomorrow. The fund will provide additional resource to support NHS boards to develop and deliver the best models of care appropriate for their populations.
This debate is about the effect on the workforce. It is important that the workforce know what may be wrong with them and that employers know what long covid is about. The Scottish Government carried out a marketing campaign in October and November last year to raise awareness of long covid and to signpost people to the appropriate support. The campaign supported the production of posters for display in community pharmacies and GP surgeries across Scotland in different languages, social media posts and a campaign toolkit that was sent to 250 direct partner contacts, with an additional distribution of approximately 3,000-plus places.
I mention the APPG and its good work. It recommended that the UK Government commit £100 million per annum to funding research into diagnostic and treatment pathways for long covid patients. The Scottish chief scientist office is funding patient-led and Scottish-led projects with a total commitment to funding. Again, that work is being done and disseminated widely.
I cannot finish without talking about statutory sick pay and its effect on people with long covid. It has a disproportionate impact on groups that are already disadvantaged in terms of work and health. To limit further health and inequality, the UK Government must ensure a liveable sick pay for all. The SNP is clear that we must have a system fit for the 21st century and we need to look at the people who are earning the least,  because someone cannot even get statutory sick pay if they are earning less than £120 a week, which is the case for many.
The fact that the Government have moved away from having statutory sick pay from the first day of sickness has a huge impact on people. The Prime Minister claimed we should be more like the Germans and not go to work when we are sick, which is quite ironic considering that Germany has one of the best sick pay systems in Europe, with laws requiring employers to pay staff 100% of wages for the first six weeks of sickness. By contrast, the UK has one of the lowest. I remember being in this Chamber and listening to a Conservative Member saying that £96.35 a day in statutory sick pay was quite a good benefit. When she was told that it was £96.35 a week, she was quite shocked, and I was quite shocked that she did not know that. It is absolutely appalling. We are one of the richest countries in the world, and people cannot afford to stay off sick. It is just disgraceful, and the fact that people now have to qualify and wait—is it two weeks?—before they can even access it is just absolutely ridiculous.
The Government did not bring in an employment Bill in the last Queen’s Speech, but they should in the next. Flexible working would also help people with long covid, as it would help them on the days when they are better able to work and perhaps do not need to trail into work. Again, there was a BEIS consultation, which ended over three months ago. Can we find out what has happened to that?
In conclusion, while employment law remains reserved to Westminster, the SNP Scottish Government are using their fair work policy to promote fairer working practices across the labour market in Scotland. I really urge the Minister to look at what is happening with low statutory sick pay, and to look at helping such people—and not just people with long covid, but as they are the subject of this debate, that would really be a huge improvement in the lives of those unfortunate enough to have this terrible condition.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Andrew Gwynne: I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for all the work she has done on this issue, and for the way she opened this debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it and the Members who have taken part. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) for his kind words. It is nice to know that my experiences have helped somebody else with theirs, and I wish his family member well for the future. I also thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who is absolutely right to draw parallels with ME both in some of the symptoms and in how that community has been treated over a number of years. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—because he is my friend—for his kind words, too.
As colleagues will know, not least because it has been mentioned in this debate, long covid is an issue very close to my heart. Back in March 2020, I first caught covid. That was 107 weeks and four days ago, and I am still struggling with some of the symptoms of long covid all these weeks and days later. Back then, I felt rough with covid, but to my relief I avoided a lot of the more serious symptoms we were seeing on the news and hearing from friends and colleagues at that time. It was not great, but the fact that I was not hospitalised was a blessing.
However, when my self-isolation period ended and in theory I should have been fine to return to work, I found that I could not. I found that I was perpetually exhausted, and I could not catch my breath. I would be talking to my wife, and suddenly the words would vanish. I would try to pick them out, but I could not find the right ones. I would forget things and lose track of why I had come into a room. I would sweat as though I had run the London marathon just doing routine day-to-day things such as making a cup of tea. I felt completely terrified. My symptoms were not going anywhere, but instead evolving into something different and seemingly something permanent.
In May 2020, Elisa Perego coined the term “long covid” to describe these persistent and wide-ranging symptoms, and I felt like a bright light had been shone on what I had been going through. We now know that over 1.5 million people suffer with long covid in the United Kingdom, and that the majority of these—989,000—say it affects their daily activities. It certainly affected mine. I am very fortunate to have a brilliant team across Westminster and in my constituency of Denton and Reddish, and they stepped up on my worst days, when getting out of bed felt like running a marathon. They made sure that my constituents were still well represented, and that I was given sufficient time to rest when needed. Listening to my body was a hard lesson, too.
However, millions of people in this country are not as fortunate as I was. We have some of the worst sick pay provision in the OECD, and we are in an age of precarious work. In that context, long covid becomes an economic as well as a health emergency. The fact of the matter is that there has been an acute failure on the part of Government to take long covid as seriously as perhaps they should, because it is not just a health issue, but an employment and a DWP issue. The Government could and, I believe, should be doing more to encourage workplaces to better support those suffering from long covid and to enable employers to understand precisely what long covid means for their workforce.
For December 2021 to January 2022, the most recent period we have access to, it has been shown that, of the 1.5 million people currently suffering from long covid, only 2,869 had attempted to access the post-covid assessment service. Of that tiny number, 34% had been waiting for longer than 15 weeks. Something is going very wrong. Almost 1 million people are reporting long covid symptoms that are adversely affecting their day-to-day lives, yet just a fraction are attempting to access care and only a fraction of those are actually getting it. I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister set out what conversations he has had with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care about these figures, and what action the Government will be taking to ensure that those who have long covid can actually access the care they desperately need.
This is actually quite crucial because, with the right rehabilitation package, work can become viable again for a proportion of those people. I want to share with the Minister some data I have received from Nuffield Health. Operating a free 12-week programme, it has so far helped over 1,900 people from across the UK to recover from the prolonged effects of covid-19, including breathlessness, anxiety and fatigue, and I am one of the 1,900 who have taken part in that free programme. Its results to date show that for 64% of people the programme improved mental wellbeing, for 39% it improved their functional capacity and for 39% it improved their breathlessness, while 35% saw an improvement in fitness and 30%—not an insubstantial number—were absent from work but felt they could return. This is not a silver bullet for all, because those are still minority figures, but I think that 30% being able to return to work with the right rehabilitation programme is quite encouraging.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, 4% of the UK workforce currently have long covid. That is an extraordinarily high number of people, and it will no doubt be having an impact both on workplace productivity and on wider employment outcomes. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has found that a quarter of UK employers cited long covid as one of the main causes of long-term sickness among their staff, yet those living with long covid have had very little in the way of workplace protection.
In my capacity as shadow Minister for public health, I have been inundated with stories of employees facing an uphill battle to have reasonable adjustments implemented in their workplaces. I have heard from doctors unable to return to work and NHS staff who have been sacked or had contracts terminated because of long covid symptoms. They are the people who carried us through the pandemic—we stood on our doorsteps for them and applauded them. We can do much better than that.
I turn to the help that I had in returning to work. I pay tribute to Mr Speaker and the staff in the Speaker’s Office, because I am lucky enough to work in an environment where reasonable adjustments were made. When I first returned to the House in person after the summer recess, I found that I could not bob in the Chamber without becoming incredibly fatigued, and that would trigger my brain fog. After almost collapsing during a ministerial statement on Afghanistan—I had been bobbing for almost an hour—I arranged for a meeting with Mr Speaker on the basis that I could not do my job and, if I could not do a simple task like bobbing up and down, I might as well pack up and leave. Mr Speaker and his brilliant staff advised me that instead of rising on each occasion, I could simply hold up my Order Paper. That simple solution made a huge difference to my health and wellbeing. I sincerely thank Mr Speaker, and indeed you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the staff in the Speaker’s Office for being so understanding.
However, reasonable adjustments should not just be made for Members of Parliament. The Government need to do much more to empower employees to approach their bosses and have these conversations. The problem is that, with practically zero workplace protections in place for long covid, they become incredibly difficult to have.
The Opposition recognise the threat that long covid poses both to the health of this nation and to the British workforce. That is why we would end the postcode  lottery of long covid care provision, fix the shameful state of sick pay and engage with employers to support those living with long covid. Covid has not gone anywhere, and it is profoundly irresponsible to stick fingers in ears and pretend that 1.5 million people are not still struggling. Free lateral flow testing will end tomorrow and, as a result, covid cases will rise. It will make it much harder to track the level of covid in the UK and, by extension, the number of people who may go on to develop and live with long covid.

Layla Moran: I am glad that the hon. Member has brought up that point. He will have heard about the difficulties that people have in accessing benefits and proving that they have long covid. People get long covid from covid, but, if they cannot get a test, how do they know if they have had covid? That makes it so much more difficult for people to prove long covid down the line and access the benefits that they deserve.

Andrew Gwynne: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is a real concern of mine, not least because I have experienced it. I was in the first wave of covid, having caught it in the weeks when the Government said, “If you develop symptoms, you no longer need to test; just go into self-isolation.” I knew that I had covid, and I know that that led to long covid, but to this day I cannot prove it because there was no routine testing available to show it. That is a real issue.
I am incredibly worried that getting rid of free testing is a short-term decision that will have major financial and public health implications for the foreseeable future. The Government cannot turn a blind eye to a problem that is having a devastating impact on the people of this country. One of the defining lessons of the pandemic is that we do not have the luxury of dithering and delay when it comes to public health. We urgently need a cross-departmental long covid strategy. I would support that, work on it and gladly give my experience and advice to Ministers to help develop it. We need a long covid strategy, we need proper sick pay, and we need the Government to understand that they have an important role in working with business and industry to ensure that reasonable adjustments and support in the workplace become a thing for all, not just for me.

Paul Scully: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on opening the debate so incredibly well, and I congratulate her, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—unfortunately he could not be here—on securing this important debate on the impact of long covid in the workplace. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and all those who have taken part in the debate for their thoughtful and insightful comments.
We heard about the ONS estimate that, in the four-week period ending 31 January 2022, 1.5 million people in the UK reported experiencing ongoing symptoms following covid. Of them, nearly 300,000 reported that their ability to undertake day-to-day activities had been significantly limited. It is therefore clear, as we have heard, that long covid presents a growing challenge for the workplace and more widely. The emergence of a completely new  condition such as long covid is a real rarity and, much like our experience of the covid-19 pandemic itself, we must be and are constantly developing our understanding.
We have put support in place for those suffering from the condition. NHS England has invested £224 million to date to provide care for people with long covid. It has established 90 long covid assessment services across England, which are assessing and diagnosing people experiencing long-term health effects as a result of covid-19 infection, whether they have had a positive test or are likely to have long covid based on their clinical symptoms, regardless of whether they were admitted to hospital during their covid-19 illness. The services offer physical, cognitive and psychological assessment and, where appropriate, refer patients to existing services for treatment and rehabilitation. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon talked about the $1 billion in the States. Not all of that has been allocated yet, while the UK is already ploughing ahead, and we are quite far ahead of other countries, including the States, in our research in the area. Of course, there is always more that we can do.
It is clearly essential to get the right healthcare and treatment in place for individuals, for employers and for the wider economy. However, the theme of the debate is the impact of long covid in the workplace. People can suffer from many long-term health and other conditions that may affect their work. We have heard about ME, and we could talk about fibromyalgia, Guillain-Barré, Miller Fisher all those things. Indeed, there are other conditions that are not necessarily post-viral.
Earlier this month, I gave evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee on the impact of the menopause in the workplace, and in February I responded for the Government to a Westminster Hall debate on supporting people with endometriosis in the workplace. Those are different conditions, but, none the less, they are long lasting and we need to ensure that we can get people the right treatments and adjustments. Indeed, in the case of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), a simple, natural adjustment made his working life so much easier, and for so many of these other conditions there are examples of small things that employers can do to keep people in the workplace. They do not have to be complicated, and they certainly do not have to be expensive.
We believe that employers should play a significant role in supporting people with long-term health conditions to access and remain in work. That can certainly benefit individuals as well as bringing real bottom-line benefits to employers through, for example, avoiding recruitment costs and not unnecessarily losing experienced and valued members of staff.
However, it is not sustainable for every condition to get different or special treatment. For employers, that could lead to confusion and complexity; likewise for employees. That is why the Government’s starting position is that, specifically in the workplace and in the overall framework for providing health support to employees, long covid should be treated the same as any other long-term health condition. Let me set out that framework, which, as hon. Members would expect, is a cross-departmental effort.
The Government’s response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation, led by the Department for Work and Pensions, was published in July 2021. It sets out some of the measures that we will take to protect and maintain the progress made to reduce ill health-related job loss and see 1 million more disabled people in work from 2017 through to 2027.

Debbie Abrahams: I am listening keenly to the Minister, but the issue is that this is an infectious disease that is contracted partly as a result of exposure, and there is clear evidence that exposure happens in the workplace. It is therefore not the same as existing progressive or fluctuating illnesses; it is very much an infectious disease contracted in the workplace. That is the basis for our recommendations.

Paul Scully: I understand the hon. Member’s point. I am trying to set out the framework for managing long-term illness, but clearly, we still have support in the workplace for those with infectious diseases. I cited ME, fibromyalgia, Guillain-Barré syndrome and Miller Fisher syndrome, which are all post-viral infections—an infection beforehand typically leads to those other long-lasting conditions. That is why I am compartmentalising the framework, but none the less, I take the hon. Member’s point about the infections happening in the first place.
“Health is everyone’s business” did not consult on long covid, or any other specific health condition for that matter; it looked at system-level measures to support employers and employees to manage any health condition or disability in the workplace. The measures that we are taking forward include providing greater clarity on employer and employee rights and responsibilities by developing a national digital information and advice service; working with the Health and Safety Executive to develop a set of clear and simple principles that employers would be expected to apply to support disabled people and those with long-term health conditions in the work environment; and increasing access to occupational health services, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, which, as we know, are currently underserved.
As I said, although those measures are not long covid-specific, they are key steps in our effort to change the workplace culture around health and sickness management. That will benefit those suffering from long covid in the same way as those suffering from other longer-term health issues or disability.
As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) said, we are also responsible for flexible working. We know that that policy can be incredibly helpful to those suffering from many long-term health conditions, including long covid, as they seek to manage the symptoms, some of which we have heard about today, such as extreme tiredness, insomnia, depression and anxiety. Although flexible working does not provide the whole answer, it can be an important tool for employers and employees as they have discussions about how better to balance the demands of work and life, particularly for those managing long-term health conditions.
The consultation on flexible working introduced plans for a future call for evidence on ad hoc flexible working; we want to explore how non-contractual flexibility works in practice. I discussed that with the Flexible Working Taskforce in February. We will ensure that the role of ad hoc flexible working to support those with long covid  and other health conditions—such as the menopause and endometriosis, which I have mentioned—is part of its considerations.

Marion Fellows: Is the Minister looking at cutting the time before someone can apply for flexible working? At the moment, they have to have been in work for quite a long while before they can do so.

Paul Scully: Our manifesto committed to consult on this issue. Within that consultation, we looked at a day one right to request flexible working. That is key, because it will attract people to and keep them in a good workplace. We might as well start as we are set to carry on.
Another significant part of the cross-departmental framework is the Government Equalities Office, which is responsible for the Equality Act 2010. That is an important part of the matrix, because it may protect those with long-term health conditions from discrimination. That Act ensures that any person with a condition that meets the definition of a disability is protected, so it should not be stigmatised. The Act describes disability as
“a physical or mental impairment”
that
“has a substantial and long-term adverse effect”
on a person’s
“ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.
We heard about that not least from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and during the incredibly passionate speech of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who cited the example of his family member. By the way, I know how difficult it is for an hon. Member to describe a family member who is suffering from something that we are debating, and I thank him for his personalised experience, which has informed the House and positively contributed so much to the debate.
As I said, the disability should not be stigmatised, though some may do so. This is simply about the impairment, as we have heard loud and clear. “Long-term” is defined having lasted, or being likely to last for, at least 12 months. “Substantial” is defined as more than minor or trivial, as we have heard strongly in Members’ examples today.
The Act makes it clear that it is not necessary for the cause of the impairment to be established, nor does the impairment have to be the result of an illness. A disability can therefore arise from a wide range of impairments. That means that any person who falls within that definition will already be protected as having a disability. That can therefore encompass some of the emerging effects of long covid, but every case will be different and should be considered on its merits.
As well as paying tribute to the hon. Member for City of Chester, I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and ask her to pass on our regards to Andrew, Nell and Rebecca. We also heard about Julie   Wells and her daughter and the caring responsibilities involved. The examples that we have had really add colour and inform the debate.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw talked about statutory sick pay. We have discussed the fact that we need to look at statutory sick pay, but this is not the time to do so, particularly while we are in the middle of the pandemic. However, we also need to look at statutory sick pay in the round. She mentioned people earning under £120 a week, but many in that situation are already in receipt of other benefits. That is what I mean about not just concentrating on one issue; we need to look at the whole person and their whole personal finance.
In summary, we are supporting people with long-term health conditions, including long covid, by working hard on the general approach to work and health, through our response to the “Health is everyone’s business consultation”, and taking steps to make some of our employment rights work a little harder to support those balancing work with other issues and challenges. All that is underpinned by the protections against discrimination provided by the Equality Act. We must also showcase the good employers, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester.

Layla Moran: If I understand this correctly, the consultation is happening and guidance will be provided more comprehensively for all longer-term illnesses. The issue particularly with long covid is that it is so new that many employers do not have a clue what it is. Will he consider suggesting a public health information campaign particularly targeted at businesses so that they know that it exists and where they can go for such guidance?

Paul Scully: I often talk about ACAS guidance, which, obviously, is available in this area. The hon. Lady mentioned what she saw as shortfalls in that guidance. We will always look at that to make sure that guidance is up to date, especially with an evolving condition such as long covid. I keep citing the example of ME, which, like fibromyalgia, is one of those diseases that is very poorly understood by so many people in the workplace and even, frankly, by health professionals. It will evolve and I am sure that we will able to push that information out to employers.
I hope that hon. Members would agree that there is a wide-ranging set of actions to address long-term health issues in the workplace, whatever those health conditions are. We want to encourage a better culture around work and health, including for those suffering from long covid. I firmly believe that it is an important principle to have a single, consistent and clear approach to managing health in the workplace. It is unsustainable to have a number of different approaches for different conditions. I close by thanking everyone once again for this helpful and informative debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of long covid on the UK workforce.

Easter Adjournment

Eleanor Laing: Let us take a moment to remember that this debate was always the point in the parliamentary calendar when our late colleague Sir David Amess would make one of his amazing speeches. He would cover 10, 12 or more different topics in about four or five minutes. He would be right there in his place, and we would all think, “Oh, no—what’s he going to say next? How many times will he manage to mention his constituency?” But his perseverance prevailed eventually, making his beloved town of Southend a city. On all the matters that he raised, year after year after year, he was listened to. He made his mark. It is very good for us to remember him for a moment.

Bob Blackman: I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Having moved the motion on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I will start by paying tribute—as you did, Madam Deputy Speaker—to the late Sir David. I think the real problem was for the person replying to the debate, who had to try to give an answer to the 20-odd items that he had raised, as well as everyone else’s. We remember Sir David at this time. The debates cannot be the same without him, but as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have urged on behalf of the Committee that the summer recess Adjournment debate be titled the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate. We hope that we will not need a resolution of the House to make that our practice.
The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), would have led this debate, but unfortunately he was taken ill this morning and has had to return home. On behalf of the whole House, I wish him well for a speedy recovery and some time off over Easter.
Before the House rises for the recess, I wish to raise a series of points. First, we are already dealing with the terrible situation in Ukraine and with Ukrainian refugees, but we should not forget that we are still dealing, as I understand it, with 12,000 Afghan refugees who are still in hotels in this country and have not been resettled. Most of them are on a six-month leave-to-remain visa. Those visas will expire very soon, but we have not received updates from the Home Office. In my constituency, 656 households have relatives who are seeking to escape from Afghanistan or have arrived here. They are all in a position of complete uncertainty about their future.
The response that my office is getting from the Home Office is “We are processing applications as soon as we can.” The responses lack clarity. I urge the Leader of the House: we need some clarity on what will happen to those Afghan citizens. Quite rightly, we are all concentrating on the Ukrainians at the moment, but we must not forget those who are here already.
At business questions today, I raised a situation relating to Harrow Council, but that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the council’s responses to my requests to resolve cases. As we all know, MPs have no control or executive powers over councils, but we constantly raise matters with them about items of business for our constituents. Harrow Council is incredibly slow in resolving  cases. We now have many cases that have been unresolved for more than a year; earlier today I raised a constituent’s case that has not had a response for 19 months. It is unacceptable in the extreme that local authorities are in that position.
Equally, my constituents face frustrations with accessibility. Harrow Council and perhaps other councils have increasingly moved from answering the telephone to doing things online. Not everyone has online facilities, but the council refuses point blank to answer the telephone at all. That leaves many of my constituents frustrated and unable to get service.
I also wish to raise the issue of safety at night in Harrow. Now that the covid restrictions have ended, more people are commuting—coming into central London for work purposes, and then returning home. Of course the nights will get shorter and the days will get longer, but when women, in particular, are returning home after dark, they experience real fear owing to the distance they have to walk from stations to their homes and the risks they are running. Many residents have contacted me about this. I am pleased to say that the Metropolitan police are taking action to provide women with escorts, if required, to accompany them from stations to places of safety. That is a welcome move; we often criticise the Metropolitan police, but I think we should congratulate them on this particular initiative. Nevertheless, the matter is clearly of great concern.
Many private landlords, certainly in my constituency, are raising rents exponentially, terminating long-term contracts and leases and then converting their properties into flats or houses in multiple occupation. None of them is being registered as a house in multiple occupation. Because there is less scrutiny of the private sector, constituents are being left either homeless or completely out of pocket. This is an outrage, in my view. The Government need to produce the renters’ reform Bill that has been promised, and I trust that it will be in the Queen’s Speech and will be implemented very soon. In this context, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In my constituency, mandatory water meters are being rolled out by the local water company, Affinity Water. Many of my constituents fear that bills will rise as a result, rather than being based on water rates. The company is installing the meters without consulting people or even asking for consent. This is a compulsory process, and is, I believe, meeting with considerable resistance.
I suspect that other Members on both sides of the House are, like me, receiving complaints from constituents about the lack of face-to-face appointments to see general practitioners. This, in my constituency, has continued for far too long. Obviously, under covid restrictions there was a reason for people to speak to their GPs either on the telephone or virtually, and, indeed, I think there are advantages in a telephone conversation between patient and GP to ensure that the GP routes the patient to the right service, but once the patient has been routed to that service, a face-to-face appointment will clearly be necessary. Most of the conditions that cause people to want to see their GP—or a medical professional—require proper examination, but that is not happening in my constituency, and I suspect that, despite efforts from the Health Secretary, they are not happening in other parts of the country.
Veterans of these debates will know that I never let the opportunity pass without mentioning Stanmore station. The Mayor of London—who does nothing much at all times—has submitted a planning application, over the heads of the people of Stanmore, to build multi-storey high-density flats on the car park, thus drastically reducing the number of parking spaces available. Given that Stanmore station is the terminus of the Jubilee line and is therefore often considered to be the car park for Wembley stadium, this is an outrageous measure. I must congratulate Harrow Council’s planning committee, which rejected the Mayor’s planning application—on very good grounds, although it could have gone a bit further in terms of grounds for its rejection. What did the Mayor do? He called the planning application in for him to consider. The Mayor of London is marking his own homework. I wonder which way his decision will go.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ensure that if the Mayor does grant his own planning application, over the heads of the members of Harrow Council’s planning committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will call it in and make sure it is dealt with properly, effectively, and in line with what local people want to see.
The key point is that if the car park is radically reduced, people will be deterred from using public transport. Instead of driving to the station, parking and then using public transport, they will drive much further into London. So it completely defeats the objective. As I have said, Stanmore is the car park for Wembley stadium on event days, and that car park is full every day of the week at the moment.
We also have a proposal for high-density, multi-storey flats on Stanmore Broadway, which is raising some interesting responses from residents. Planning permission was given for a smaller development some 10 years ago and never implemented, but this is now a very high-density proposal indeed. Harrow councillors, the Stanmore Society and the development firm are holding consultation meetings and, to be fair to the developers, they are doing a good job of consulting residents and users of the shops to ensure that whatever scheme eventually gets submitted as a proper planning application, it will be in keeping with their concerns.
Another issue that is frequently raised with me is the do-nothing Mayor of London’s constant attacks on motorists. The latest wheeze is the ultra low emission zone expansion scheme. It will extend to the whole of the Greater London area, beyond the north and south circular roads, and have a dramatic impact on poorer people and those who run small businesses who cannot afford the most modern vehicles. What we need to understand is that there is a shortage of new cars because of the worldwide shortage of semiconductors. This has led to very high prices for second-hand vehicles, and fuel prices have already rocketed. This damages the people who have to travel to do their business. It is all very well talking about having transport links to central London, but this involves people travelling around London, which is becoming more difficult, particularly for people who have to travel with tools and other such facilities. It is an outrage that this extension is being implemented.
The Mayor was of course completely silent when his paymasters, the RMT, went on strike and brought London transport to a halt. He is very vocal when  attacking motorists, but makes no comment on that kind of inconvenience to the travelling public. The issue here is that the consultation will commence in May, after the local elections, and run for 10 weeks. I urge everyone in London to respond to this consultation by saying that they do not want the extension and that it is an outrage that should not be followed through.
Finally, I have to raise an issue that some of us were debating yesterday: getting England to be smoke-free by 2030. Currently, one in seven people smoke, and the numbers are still going down. That is good news—in 1971, it was 50%—but we still have a long way to go to get to a smoke-free England. The worst aspect of this is that 280 children take up smoking every day in England, of whom only a third will manage to quit in their lifetime and another third of whom will die from a smoking-related disease. That is why I strongly support the age of sale being raised. When it was raised from 18 to 21 in the United States, smoking rates decreased by nearly a third among 18 to 20-year-olds.
The legislation proposed by the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health would raise the smoking age from 18 to 21 for legal sale. That proposal is supported by the vast majority of the adult population in this country, including more than 50% of 18 to 24-year-olds themselves. I would also urge the Government to consider the levy that we have proposed, which we debated yesterday. Implementing such a levy on the profits of the big tobacco companies would raise £700 million. They can well afford it, and that money could be directed into smoking cessation services and making this country healthier.
In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, the staff and all colleagues a very happy Easter and a good break. I know that some people out there think it is holiday, but for the next two weeks I shall be teaching no fewer than 16 work experience students what it is like to be a hard-working MP, as we all are, in my constituency and giving them the opportunity to think about whether they want to pursue it as a career, although they may be a bit wiser than that after they have spent two weeks with me.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Given how many Members are standing, I can advise the House that I am not going to put on a time limit because I hope that we can manage without one. However, if people speak for more than seven or eight minutes, not only will they lose the attention of the House—[Laughter] I think it is time that somebody actually told the truth—but they will also prevent their colleagues from having an equal opportunity to air the matters that are important in their constituency. That is just guidance, which I am sure will be kept in mind by Siobhan McDonagh.

Siobhain McDonagh: It certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have one single very important issue to bring to the attention of the House and the Leader of the House—a tragic case of dangerous driving. I also want to raise a clear gap in the law that I hope he will agree it is both easy and essential for the Government to change.
In the early hours of Christmas morning, two policemen knocked on my constituent Debbie’s door. A 3 am visit from the emergency services was their worrying signal that something bad had happened, but for Debbie, Michael, Donna and all the Clack family, the news was their very worst nightmare.
Debbie’s daughter, Lillie, had been in a car whose intoxicated driver had refused to slow or stop for the police. The car had careered into a tree, leading to the hospitalisation of Lillie Clack and the injury of several others in the car. Devastatingly, Lillie died just a few days later, in the afternoon of 28 December. For Lillie’s family, their lives have changed forever. Nothing will bring her home.
But if the grief of a lost daughter, sister and niece was not enough, the time since has brought further pain to the Clack family, and it is because of a gap in the law. As it stands, there is nothing to prevent someone charged with dangerous driving, even in this situation, where a young woman has lost her life, from continuing to drive until their case gets to court and they are found guilty. For families waiting years for a trial, their unimaginable grief is worsened by the knowledge that the driver responsible for the death of their loved one can legally jump back in their car and get back on to the roads.
The Clack family are campaigning for anyone who causes death while driving to have their licence suspended immediately. Their Change.org petition already has tens of thousands of supportive signatures, and I would like to quote from the family’s petition directly.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before the hon. Lady continues with what is a heartbreaking story—all our hearts go out to the family in this awful tragedy—I am sure she will give consideration to sub judice rules, and that if this is a matter that has yet to come before the courts, she will be very careful to anonymise the case to which she is referring.

Siobhain McDonagh: I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there will be no reference to those involved in the particular case or to anyone who will potentially be charged.
The petition states:
“The law needs to change! If it doesn’t, people will continue to die and families will continue to endure the torment and torture after losing a loved one.
We will never get Lillie back and the experience so far can’t be changed but we will fight to endeavour that no other family has to go through the hell that comes after a loved one has been killed by a driver that made a choice to drive recklessly and dangerously!”
Will the Leader of the House indicate in his closing remarks whether he agrees with me and the Clack family that there is a clear and rectifiable gap in the law? If that is the case, will he take this issue up with the relevant Minister to report back?
Sadly, this is not the only painful experience that the family has had to face since Lillie’s death. Around a dozen videos have been uploaded anonymously to YouTube, featuring Lillie’s name, photograph and details of her death. The purpose of the videos is unclear, other than to cause further pain to the family. My office has repeatedly been in contact with YouTube to call for the videos to be taken down. Although progress is finally  being made, it has taken weeks of discussion and delay. It seems the threshold for removing harmful content is, appallingly, higher than the trolling of a mourning family.
My heart goes out to the Clack family for the pain that they have suffered these past three months. I hope the Leader of the House will agree that changing the dangerous driving law is unquestionably the right thing to do. I know his assurance that he will take this forward will be of considerable comfort to a grieving family.

Fiona Bruce: I want to raise two local issues relating to my Congleton constituency—one has wider implications—and one international issue.
First, my constituent Oliver Niblett, of the small family building business Niblett Homes Ltd of Middlewich, has written to me
“on behalf of my company and all small-scale property developers experiencing the same frustrations…with local authority planning departments”.
The length of time it takes for an application to proceed through the planning process is, to use his words, “almost unbearable”. He says the system effectively penalises small developers:
“Large building companies can better manage these delays because they have the funds to bank land and apply for permission well in advance, however small bespoke developers such as ourselves do not have that luxury and are facing a bleak future.”
Indeed, he says, constant delays are
“putting small companies out of business.”
Mr Niblett’s company was founded by his father, and Oliver Niblett now works in it with his brother. The financial pressures on such a business, which cannot afford to invest for a long time the huge sum required even for one plot of land on which to build a house—it can take 12 months from purchase to the beginning of development—are making life extremely difficult for the family. He tells me:
“It is now taking a minimum of 4 months before a planning application is even assigned to a case officer for consideration.”
Until a planning application is assigned—that is, before it is considered live—it is virtually impossible to speak to anyone at the council about it. If the case is assigned, it is at least six months before permission is granted. If someone has the misfortune to submit the wrong form or make an error, they can be put to the back of the queue and be looking at another four-month wait after resubmission.
A current application has caused Mr Niblett to contact me. This was not even a new application; his family business had bought a house with existing planning permission, but in order to modify that permission, the business was required by the council to put in a whole new application. The key concerns he raises are, first, that
“delays and extensions make it impossible to plan our work schedule”;
secondly, the
“unnecessary bureaucracy when wanting to amend an existing application”;
thirdly, the
“prioritisation of larger developments (who are more able to tolerate delays than smaller projects)”;
fourthly, that the complaints process only leads people into more bureaucracy; and, fifthly, the way that applicants are treated by council officers,
“the likes of which would not be tolerated in the private sector.”
Mr Niblett is fully aware that this issue does not relate exclusively to our local authority of Cheshire East Council. I have contacted it and I hope that my raising his case today will prompt it to ensure that he receives his decision without further delay. After considerable delay, that decision was due on 29 March, although he tells me that as of yesterday he had not heard about it. The council has responded to me about these concerns by saying,
“the planning system faces a real challenge in terms of the availability of skilled workers in the sector and the high levels of demand placed on the system…the Council has not been able to turnover the same volume of applications as it was pre-pandemic…due to…staffing issues, procedural changes enforced because of working from home”—
I sincerely hope that has now changed—
“and a surge in planning applications submissions…
To conclude…it is advocated by many professionals working in the sector that the key to improvements nationally is to support, skill and resource the planning system”.
I hope that Ministers will take account of that, because businesses such as Niblett Homes, which are founded, run and worked in by people who live locally, are, it goes without saying, the lifeblood of constituencies such as mine.
The second issue I wish to raise relates to Astbury Place in Congleton and, in particular, the bridge into Congleton park. This is a long-standing issue, but it is still unresolved, and I have been asked to raise it by a resident, Neil Taylor. He informs me that construction of a bridge from this relatively new development, although it has now been standing several years, into Congleton park,
“has been opposed by the majority of residents for several years. The developer has offered money in lieu of the bridge to fund another project within the town which would provide a greater benefit to a much larger group within the wider community.”
That refers to a pedestrian crossing on Brook Street. Mr Taylor has carried out a local survey, which he has asked me to speak about. He has calculated that 63 properties are “in scope” in the Astbury Place community, although one was unoccupied and so he surveyed 62. He asked how many occupants would like the pedestrian crossing. He received 56 responses, with 46 supporting the crossing in lieu of the bridge, which is some 82%. Those in eight properties would rather still have the bridge and two other respondents did not express a view. Mr Taylor fully accepts that there are those who would rather have the bridge and who have very strong feelings about this. Indeed, to put matters fairly on the record, I must say that I have received correspondence from residents to that effect. However, Mr Taylor has asked me to point out that this has now gone on for considerable time. He has lived there for more than seven years, and the section 106 agreement was signed more than 10 years ago. He tells me that over the years a number of people who initially preferred a bridge would now rather have the road crossing. Not having the bridge does not change anything today, as people there have lived without it for so long. I asked him what he would like me to achieve through highlighting this today. He told me that residents would like an in-person conversation with someone from Cheshire  East Council who is willing to listen to them. He hoped therefore that even at this point in time a dialogue could be arranged, bearing in mind the figures that he has established representing what he believes is the majority view. I hope that that will now be the case.
Finally, I wish to raise an issue that comes from a considerable distance away, from Pakistan. On 21 March, an 18-year-old Hindu girl, Pooja Kumari, was shot dead in Sindh province. According to media reports, the alleged killer wanted to convert Pooja to Islam and marry her. When she refused, the alleged killer attempted to abduct her and, following a struggle, shot her. Local police arrested the alleged killer on 22 March. I would like to express my condolences to Pooja’s family. Tragically, the abduction of young girls in Pakistan for forced marriage and forced conversion is far too common, and it is affecting not only Hindus such as Pooja, but Christians and Sikhs. Some estimates put the number affected at as many as 1,000 girls a year. This is simply unacceptable. We must call this out more strongly, and challenge it to see change. I hope that is one outcome that will come out of the conference to he held here in London in July on freedom of religion or belief for everyone, everywhere, when we will gather together faith leaders and representatives, civil society activists and Government Ministers from countries around the world, not only to discuss freedom of religion or belief concerns, but, I hope, to develop practical solutions to address these concerns.
Alongside the conference, we are planning a FORB fringe—largely organised through the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief—at which around 100 side events will take place to highlight FORB concerns. Having worked internationally as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief for more than a year, I am proud that the all-party parliamentary group now has 157 members. It is a cross-party group the likes of which does not exist anywhere else in the world. It is a tribute to parliamentarians here and the way they have raised freedom of religion or belief and put it on the international agenda.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I fully endorse your proposal, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the summer Adjournment debate should be known as the David Amess Adjournment debate. The speed with which he described Southend means that whenever I go there I simply run to keep up with the sites that he used to describe to us. It would be nice to remember him in that way.
I wish to speak about the refugee crisis around the world and offer some thoughts on where it might come to. As we go into the Easter Adjournment, around 70 million people around the world are refugees. They are refugees from wars, famine, human rights abuse and poverty, and refugees fleeing intolerance in their societies. They are all people who want to survive and contribute to the world. They are often treated brutally wherever they try to escape to. Indeed, on our own continent, Europe, many are dying in the Mediterranean and, sadly, some are dying in the English channel trying to get to this country. Such injustice has to be compared with the rhetoric with which we claim to be supportive and always welcoming of refugees—we are not and we have not been.
I totally and absolutely condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the bombing of civilian targets and the killing of people, and I have every sympathy for all those who have had to flee from Ukraine to try to get to a place of safety. I absolutely welcome the way in which people in this country—apparently 200,000 of them—have offered space in their own homes to refugees from Ukraine, and the fact that those who come here will be able to stay here, will get papers immediately and will get the right to work. I absolutely welcome and support all that. Indeed, in my constituency and borough, many people are taking part in fundraising efforts to assist Ukrainian people. There obviously needs to be an urgent ceasefire, a withdrawal of forces and a long-term settlement that brings about peace and security for people in the whole region. There must also be a recognition of the bravery of many peace campaigners in Russia who have opposed the war and are now in prison as a result. All wars end in a peace process, and I hope we can get to that point much more quickly.
I have to raise the uncomfortable truth of the contrast between the way Ukrainian refugees are supported by our media and by many politicians and people in our society, and the way refugees from other conflicts are not treated in the same way. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) correctly pointed out that Afghan refugees are still waiting. Many of them have been waiting for months and months just to get papers to get somewhere to live so that they can contribute to and work in our society.

Meg Hillier: My right hon. Friend raises a critical point. Does he agree that it is about time the Home Office looked at some of the restrictions on family members joining? They are still being asked to take the English language test. For a woman in Afghanistan, trying to do that under the Taliban is very challenging.

Jeremy Corbyn: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is totally correct. In her constituency and mine, there are people who have come from the most awful situations and wars around the world. They want to work and contribute—they are often very experienced and qualified—but are just languishing day in, day out in unsatisfactory and expensive temporary accommodation, unable to contribute to our health service, education service and so many other things. It is a crying shame and a crying waste.
There are victims of other wars in which we as a country have been involved. The war in Iraq created many refugees. The constant bombing in Palestine by Israel’s occupying forces also creates refugees in that region, in Libya and around the world. In Yemen, which is now the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, there has been constant bombing for a very long time by Saudi forces, which are armed and supplied by Britain. If we are serious about peace in the world and serious about these issues, we must question our own policies and our own activities. It is a bit strange when our Prime Minister quite rightly condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine and then, at the same time, asks Saudi Arabia to supply us with more oil, because we are not buying oil or gas from Russia—we did not buy that much gas from Russia anyway—and asks it to co-operate. Lewis Hamilton and others have done more for human  rights in Saudi Arabia than the British Government by simply speaking out against the human rights abuses that exist there. We must be consistent and clear in what we do—consistent and clear on the issue of human rights whether or not there is, as a result, an economic difficulty or cost.
None of these wars has happened by accident. I have mentioned a number, but there are many more around the world. This is also about the policies that led to them. A few days ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and I had an interesting meeting with Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Mauritanian national, who was taken to Guantanamo Bay. He suffered grievously there—waterboarding, torture, isolation, sleep deprivation, bright lights, loud music and everything else—for years. I was amazed by how rational he was in his discussions and observations of what had gone on there. He got out and is now teaching people about the dangers of it. He works in the Netherlands and other places to draw attention to it and is a writer of plays and so on. We have to ask ourselves how an innocent man ended up in Guantanamo Bay, other than through the atmosphere created by the war on terror by George Bush and others before 2003. Then we have to ask ourselves about how we get to the truth of these matters, and this is what I want to conclude with. The truth about these matters is that there was a long-term plan by the United States and others to invade Iraq through the war on terror—we can remember the axis of evil speech by George Bush in 2002.
There was also one journalist who told the world the truth about all this. Julian Assange revealed the truth about US matters, about what it was doing, about the war in Iraq, about Afghanistan and about the treatment of people. He revealed the truth. He will go down in history as a journalist who exposed what was going on, in the same way that others exposed what German rearmament was about in the 1930s, and human rights abuses in other places around the world, including in the Vietnam war, the Afghan war—all the Afghan wars for that matter—and others. Yet, he is in Belmarsh, a maximum security prison in this country, just a few miles from this House, and is not in a good physical state. Anybody in Belmarsh, particularly those who are not guilty of anything, will not be in a good physical state. Obviously, the court cases have gone on. At the moment, there are no legal processes going on, which is why I am able to bring this subject up in the House. I just ask for a sense of understanding of what Julian Assange has contributed to the world in trying to bring truth to power about what has actually happened. I would hope that this House would recognise that those who expose injustices and abuse are eventually remembered and recognised.
I will give a parallel: an unknown shipping clerk in Liverpool, E.D. Morel, observed things that were going back and forth from what was then the Belgian Congo in the late 19th and early 20th century. He started to investigate the appalling abuses of human rights in the Congo. He was vilified and attacked for doing so, but he persevered and prevailed. Eventually, he came to this House, becoming a Member and a Minister and so on. He exposed the truth and eventually saved lives in the Congo.
That tradition of people speaking out against abuses of human rights and injustice when they find them, whatever the consequences for themselves, is something  we should revere, welcome and support. We should not allow Julian Assange to be confined to prison in this country and possibly removed to the United States, where he would face a lifetime sentence—or even several lifetime sentences, in the ridiculousness of some of their legal decisions—and never see the light of day or be able to write again.
We need to think very carefully about what freedom of speech is. If we do not defend those who defend the right to know, and ensure that we get the right to know, we demean ourselves in the process. I hope that over Easter people will reflect on that, and our Ministers in the Home Office and other Departments will think for a moment about the consequences of denying freedom to somebody who has ensured that there is at least an understanding of how some of these atrocious wars and abuses of human rights came about.

Bob Stewart: On 1 July 2009, the Defence Secretary announced in this Chamber that recognised next of kin of service personnel killed on operations would qualify for a commemorative emblem called the Elizabeth Cross. That cross is made of silver and is about the size of a military cross—a gallantry award—which my own father was given in 1955 in Aden. It comes in a large form, about two inches square, and has a miniature too. It is accompanied by a scroll, signed by Her Majesty, bearing the name of the person who lost their life in the service of our country.
Everyone I know who has been given that badge wears it with huge pride. I—and we all—hope that it is of some, albeit limited, comfort to them. Personally, I have been involved in the awarding of the Elizabeth Cross to eight family members of soldiers who died while under my command. However, it does not make sense to me that those who protect us in non-military uniforms, such as the police, prison, fire and ambulance services, should not have a similar arrangement for their own next of kin if they are killed in the line of duty. I think they should, and so do many of us in this place.
Within 100 metres of this Chamber, our own Police Constable Keith Palmer, George Medal, was killed in New Palace Yard on 22 March 2017. He had a wife and children, and I think Mrs Palmer would qualify for such an award. All told, I understand the police services of our country have lost several hundred officers killed in the pursuit of their duty since the second world war—in other words, not that many. I gather, too, that between 1986 and 2013, the last year for which I could get figures, 26 firefighters were killed attending fires in the United Kingdom. Most of them, of course, had close loved ones, so how about an award similar to the Elizabeth Cross for the blue light services?
By blue light services, I mean the police, prison officers, and fire and ambulance services, in the first instance, but the award might be expanded to include the coastguard and other organisations that save people, such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, as well as mountain and mine rescue teams. The award could be given to recognised next of kin with similar criteria to that necessary for the award of the Elizabeth Cross—in other words, the closest loved ones of those that have been killed.
I suggest that if this idea were to be taken up, the award should be of the same quality as the armed forces’ Elizabeth Cross, which is somewhat splendid and much prized by those that wear it. The cross—please make it a cross, not a medal; a cross is so much more distinctive—would look good in silver, designed along equivalent lines to those given to the next of kin of armed forces personnel. In short, it must stand out as special, and so it should be. Surely the next of kin of blue light service personnel who die protecting us are just as deserving as armed forces personnel who die for the same reason. I believe that at this time, and with the permission of Her Majesty the Queen, the award might be called the Prince Philip Cross.
I have been campaigning for this for some time now. I have previously raised the idea in the House and I do not apologise for doing so again. Last night, I told my good friend the Crime and Policing Minister that I was going to raise the matter once more. The Minister encouraged me and repeated what he had said before—that he fully supports the idea. I am now looking at the Leader of the House, who is writing, “This is a really good idea.” [Laughter.] He has that quizzical smile on his face. Based on what I gather about the institution of the Elizabeth Cross in 2009, it might not even need legislation, just a ministerial decision at the right level. Would it not be appropriate to include the establishment of such an award for the next of kin of blue light service personnel killed in the line of duty, protecting us, in the Queen’s Speech? Do I make my point, Leader of the House? He nods.

Sarah Green: Before we rise for the recess, I would like to raise three outstanding issues important to my constituents.
One of the things I will be doing over the recess is going for a walk along the River Chess—one of the chalk streams located in my constituency. There are fewer than 300 chalk streams in the world, and 85% of them can be found here in England. In Chesham and Amersham we are lucky to have two—the Misbourne and the Chess. Neither currently has a “good” ecological status. These rivers, along with the rest of England’s chalk streams, are under severe threat from a combination of over-abstraction, pollution, and other forms of environmental damage. At the most water-stressed times of year, the flow of the River Chess is at 41% below natural, and in places the Misbourne does not flow at all.
It is clear to me that these special rivers need heightened protections so that we do not lose them and the array of animal and plant wildlife that rely on them. In October last year, the Catchment Based Approach’s chalk stream restoration strategy was published. The Government have previously stated their commitment to protecting chalk streams and welcomed this strategy. I therefore urge them to look at its key recommendation—a call for an overarching level of protection and priority status for chalk streams. Such a designation would inject energy and investment into the protection of chalk streams, and I hope the Government will look at introducing legislation to enact it. I hope that might also afford additional considerations in the planning of major infrastructure projects likely to damage chalk streams.
The second issue I wish to raise is the further threat facing my local chalk streams from the construction of HS2. As I speak, two tunnel-boring machines are eating their way through the Chilterns, demolishing the chalk aquifer below as they go. I have previously raised my concerns about the loss of bentonite into the aquifer. This is just one example where it has been made clear that HS2 is being constructed with a complete lack of consideration for the environments it is destroying and people it is impacting.
I note that the company’s community engagement strategy, last updated in October, is titled “Respecting People, Respecting Places”. It seems that HS2 Ltd and its contractors are doing neither. Just before Christmas, HS2 Ltd presented some of my constituents with the gift of a notice of entry declaring that it would be entering their homes to install movement monitoring apparatus. I am sure Members can imagine how distressing it was when my constituents were then unable to contact HS2 Ltd for weeks to understand what that meant in practice.
Separately, a parish council was shocked to learn that its local children’s play area and duck pond were subject to a notice of temporary possession. It was later clarified that that was just a precaution, but it is precisely this lack of clarity in communications that causes unnecessary distress. HS2 Ltd is failing to communicate transparently, exacerbating the already strained relationship with communities, who feel they are having this project imposed on them. HS2 Ltd is treating its interactions with people and the environment like a tick-box exercise, doing no more than meeting minimum requirements. I hope that the Government will be able to exercise some influence over it and encourage it to meet not just the letter, but the spirit of the commitments it made to those along the line of the route.
I will close by mentioning the astounding generosity of the people of Chesham and Amersham. Since the crisis in Ukraine began, I have received an outpouring of emails from constituents asking how they can help. Some have more personal links and have been looking for my help in bringing family fleeing Ukraine to their homes in Buckinghamshire. I am pleased to share that some of these families have been safely reunited. Unfortunately, others are still stranded in Ukraine or bordering countries. One constituent of mine flew to Romania on 7 March to join his Ukrainian sister-in-law and nephews, who had fled their home country. After applying for their visas on 10 March, I am sorry to say that due to a number of delays in processing their applications, three weeks later they are still stuck there. I appreciate the huge amount of pressure currently on the Home Office and those helping, and I understand the safeguarding issues when it comes to children, but I am disappointed that it is taking so long. That is not an isolated case, and the third thing I put to the Minister is that I hope the Government will continue to improve and speed up the process throughout recess. That is desperately needed.
That said, I must thank the many people of Chesham and Amersham for their efforts to help the people of Ukraine, from those wanting to provide shelter to year 6 at Little Chalfont Primary School, who held a bake sale to raise funds. It shows that we truly are a generous and  compassionate community, and it is a privilege to represent them in this House. I take this opportunity to wish all Members a happy Easter and a restful recess.

Shaun Bailey: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Reflecting on what was said at the start of this debate about the impact of the great Sir David Amess, I take this opportunity to make my contribution as local as it can be. In that regard, I want to transport Members to the beating heart of this country, the Black Country. It is great to see the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) in her place, because she will know the efforts I have taken to educate civil servants about the difference between the Black Country and Birmingham. Perhaps one ask I have of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is that it becomes part of civil service training to understand the differences between the Black Country and Birmingham. Perhaps he could ensure, using his good offices, that as part of that standard training manual for new Ministers and civil servants, particularly permanent secretaries, they understand that, as we say, “The Black Country ain’t Birmingham.”
I take this opportunity to talk about the communities I represent in Wednesbury, Great Bridge, Princes End, Tipton Green, Tividale and Oldbury. I will try, in the spirit of Sir David, to include as much as I can locally in my contribution. Let us get started with Tipton. I need to raise with my right hon. Friend the issue of the residents of Thomas Cox Wharf and Alexandra Grange, a new development built by Mar City and Aurora Living. This development has been left with roads not resurfaced and pavements not done, and the builder and developer have now gone into liquidation. This means that the remedial works that should have been done and the moneys that should have been recovered through section 106 agreements with the local authority have not happened. I have now worked with two Housing Ministers to try to get this resolved. We have made some progress, particularly on the Alexandra Grange development, in getting some of the work done, but it is clearly not right that my constituents in Tipton are having to put up with their estate not being completed in the way they would have expected. As a result, they are unable to sell their home in many cases, so they feel trapped. I hope my right hon. Friend can encourage the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to engage further and to see what we can do with Sandwell Council. I pay tribute to officers at Sandwell Council who have been practical in their work with me to try to resolve this issue.
Flooding has also been a big issue in Tipton. There were issues in Cotterills Road and Locarno Road, where I helped to move people’s damaged goods out of their property following flash flooding. Thanks to a lot of negotiation, we managed to get £80,000 from the Government for flood defences in Tipton. I am pleased to say that residents will now hopefully see the benefit of investment in Tipton, an area to which I feel very close. It was harrowing to see the impact of that flooding on my constituents.
Sticking with Tipton, I must mention the A461 or, as we know it, Great Bridge island, which is a nightmare. My constituency office is located in Great Bridge, which is a mile and a half from my home. It is a 45-minute  drive in rush hour because of congestion on Great Bridge island. I have campaigned to get remedial work done for a year and a half, and my constituents want to see traffic lights on the island. I implore my right hon. Friend to advise me on the best way to start lobbying to get the money through so that people in Great Bridge can commute to and from work.
Princes End has a vibrant high street, but it needs more. I implore my right hon. Friend to give his ministerial colleagues a nudge to ensure that some levelling-up funding comes to Princes End, which is one of the most deprived wards in the west midlands.
Sandwell Council has done great work on the “cracker,” which is a fantastic green space in Princes End, to ensure it is kept clean and available. Can my right hon. Friend reaffirm that we will work to protect the very small amount of green space in urban areas such as mine in the Black Country? I am sure he is aware of the controversial Black Country plan and the issues it has presented for green spaces across the Black Country.
We are fortunate to have a heritage action zone in Wednesbury that has seen our fantastic clock tower, which is nearly 100 years old, get £1.6 million of investment. I welcome that money.
Surprisingly, after 20 years of no movement, there has suddenly been movement on Wednesbury’s health centre in the past two years. It is amazing what happens with a change of personnel. We need to make sure that that follows through, and I implore my right hon. Friend to advise me on how we can ensure that the Government work with local stakeholders to deliver that much-needed addition to local health infrastructure for people in Wednesbury and nearby Darlaston so that they have the access to primary care they need.
Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents, particularly market traders in Wednesbury, that the Government are listening to market traders and market stallholders? They are still a key part of our local economy, and Wednesbury is a proud market town. We have to ensure that it keeps that heritage.
Antisocial behaviour has been a big issue in Wednesbury and West Bromwich. Hill Top in my constituency has recently had massive issues with antisocial behaviour, and I am working with Vijay Gaddu, a local campaigner, to ensure that we tackle it. I am also working with local stakeholders such as the fantastic Rev. Mark Wilson from St James and St Paul’s Church in Hill Top to ensure we get it under control. I hope my right hon. Friend has some words for campaigners like Vijay and Mark to ensure we tackle antisocial behaviour. Equally, we need to get a grip on the parking issues around Wednesbury.
I am conscious that I am cantering through my speech, but I want to make sure I say as much as I can. Family hubs are important. Harvills Hawthorn Primary School in my constituency has campaigned hard for a family hub, and the Harvills Hawthorn estate is an area of real deprivation. The school’s headteacher has done fantastic work with children aged four, five and six years old who are struggling with verbal communication skills and with basic needs, and they are also working with their parents. They need that extra support.
It was great to see the Government’s commitment to family hubs, but we need to ensure that areas such as Harvills Hawthorn get that support. I appreciate that this is a bit of a shopping list for my right hon. Friend—  unfortunately, these debates are like that—but I hope that he or one of his ministerial colleagues could meet me to discuss the importance of a family hub there, because it is a key part of ensuring that the levelling-up agenda, which is vital for my constituents, particularly young people at the start of their lives, gets through. I was impressed by the young people at Harvills Hawthorn.
We are going up the bonk now, as we would say where I am from, because residents in Tividale are equally dealing with horrendous issues around antisocial behaviour, particularly on new build estates and with management companies that do not appear to be following through. In my right hon. Friend’s discussions with ministerial colleagues, I ask him to keep the pressure on to ensure that those who pay management fees, particularly freeholders, get what they are paying for.
In particular, there is a long-standing issue about a gate on the Speakers Close estate in Tividale. It is a prime example of where residents know the need to tackle antisocial behaviour and they have the solution but they cannot break down the barriers in their way. Residents have come to me about it because councillors and management companies have let them down, so I needed to raise the issue on the Floor of the House.
I have tried to canter through as much as I can and to keep hon. Members’ attention, which I hope I have, in a short space of time. I will say that the last couple of years have been tumultuous in Sandwell. We have seen in the press the issues that we have had with the local authority and commissioners coming through, and we have seen some of the other issues that we have had as well, but I want to touch on the good things, such as the fantastic community in Sandwell. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree, as he came to Sandwell recently to visit me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), and I am sure he saw first hand the great community that we have.
That is nowhere more true than for the residents of Walker Grange care home in Tipton, who reminded me why I am here. Walker Grange’s oldest resident is 102 years old and it has been her home for 30 years. It was under threat of closure as the council was absolutely determined to close it; I raised that with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the time. Through the sheer determination of the residents and their families, they kept that care home open, and not just that—they secured the £1-million investment that they needed to upgrade it. That resident said to me that it was her life and she could not see herself carrying on living if she did not live with the family that she had built there. That proved to me that the communities of the Black Country, as we would say, “Them bostin’” and they make me so proud to be their Member of Parliament.
I take the opportunity on our Adjournment to wish everyone, including House staff, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, a restful recess—even though I do not think it will be restful for many of us. I say to my constituents that I am proud to be their Member of Parliament and I hope that my right hon. Friend will have picked up the shopping list that I have given him on their behalf.

Meg Hillier: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who does have  to educate certain senior figures in the civil service about where and what the Black Country is, but that has given them a very good indication. My word to them is that if they mug up on those sorts of things, I am not sure that he will give them an easier ride at the Public Accounts Committee, but it might mean that they have a slightly smoother route through and certainly fewer demands for visits to the Black Country as a result, although I am sure they are always pleased to visit.
I declare an interest that I am a leaseholder of a building with cladding, although I am not being required to pay for its replacement thanks to the developer stepping up, and I am the landlord of a private rented property. Today I will talk about housing, homelessness and all the housing issues in Hackney. Everybody in Hackney has a different housing issue; we have a huge range of challenges that are different for different sectors.
Homelessness and overcrowding are immense in my constituency. We often talk here, particularly at the moment, about the cost of living, but the real cost for many of my constituents is that they do not have a stable home to live in. As of June 2020, we had more than 8,000 households in temporary accommodation, which accounts for roughly one in 35 residents in the borough. The expenditure on temporary accommodation has increasingly gone up.
Families are now typically living in hostels for three years or more. During lockdown, in fact, a woman was living in one with her seven-year-old daughter and was working while her daughter was home-schooling in the same room. That was not uncommon. Those who are lucky enough to have access to a council tenancy or a private temporary tenancy are often living in very overcrowded conditions. In council properties, often one family lives in the living room and another in the bedroom. Families with many children often live in a one-bedroom flat or, as in the case of a woman I spoke to the other day, her four children have bunk beds in one bedroom and she sleeps in the living room. This is a real challenge. We talk about levelling up and there is also talk about the covid divide, with many communities or individuals being in even more difficult circumstances than others, but this is endemic. I have seen families with toddlers who have grown into teenagers and young adults while they have been unable to move out.
Young adults are not able to start in their own home, and why not? Because even if they could find somewhere to rent privately, the rent levels in the private rented sector are enormously high. As of September last year, the median monthly rent in Hackney is £1,600, but for a one-bedroom apartment it is £1,350 a month and for a three-bedroom apartment it is £2,220 a month. That is completely out of the reach of most working people, and even well-paid key workers struggle on that basis. This is causing a crisis for families, but also for many of our services because people have to travel a long way in to work, particularly in our schools and our heath service. There really is no prospect for them, and there is no prospect for those in overcrowded social housing of moving in.
I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at changing some of the rules for renting privately, because as well as the barriers of cost, there are huge  barriers for those who rent privately. More people rent privately in Hackney than live in their own owned housing, and more people rent in social housing than both of those combined. The private rented sector is growing and significant, and those people have very few rights. Recently, the Public Accounts Committee looked into this and, frankly, it is a dog’s breakfast. It is good that the Government are looking at this, but there is a lot of hope out there, and I wait to see what the Government will deliver to make sure that tenants have far more rights, better rights and easier routes to redress. For many tenants, the idea of taking their landlord to court and going through such a process is too costly and time-consuming, and many people do not even get past the first hurdle. It is important that landlords remember that they are in the business of letting homes, and it is the homes bit that is too often forgotten.
There are serious concerns about house prices in Hackney South and Shoreditch, as well as in Hackney as a whole, and indeed in London. It is now pretty much impossible for anyone on the average wage to buy. A typical two-bedroom modern flat will be marketed at £750,000. I should perhaps repeat that for those who think I may have slipped a nought into the wrong place: £750,000. I suspect that that would buy someone significantly more in the Black Country. It means that even rich MPs would struggle to get on the housing ladder, and it is impossible—it is out of the reach—for those living in overcrowded housing or the private renters who want to put down roots.

Andrew Slaughter: My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech. Does she agree that at the root of all the problems she has mentioned—the extraordinary levels of overcrowding we are seeing, with even very disabled children growing up in totally unsuitable properties—is the failure to build social housing, and there is nothing about that in the current Government proposals? They have proposals on social housing, but nothing to increase the stock significantly, and that is the only way we are going to build affordable properties for the people she is talking about.

Meg Hillier: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am proud of the fact that, under the current Mayor of London, we have seen 11,000 council housing and social housing starts, and the mayor of Hackney has made it a key priority. However, for pretty much every council house built, authorities have to build a private house for sale at the rates I have mentioned in order to cross-subsidise. This crisis has been looming for some time, but it is just getting worse, and we do need to see more supply. Every Budget—when we see the Chancellor at the Dispatch Box—fuels house prices, which one could say is a dividend for homeowners, but it is absolutely terrible for those trying to get out of private renting and get on to the ladder or for those who need that social housing so desperately. This is a really serious concern, and we need to see a big step change on this issue.
The other big housing issue is of course cladding. We have at least 93 buildings in Hackney classed as high risk for cladding, but many more with small amounts of cladding need their wretched EWS1 form, and this is proving really difficult. We have so many families who need to move because of the size of their family but who cannot do so because they cannot sell. I recently  met a group of residents who have had to move for their job, but they have had to let their property. Although the Government keep making promises about support for leaseholders, they are now saying that they will not help those landlords. However, they are landlords because they could not sell, not because they chose to be. There may be differences between such landlords and investment landlords, but that is a real concern. It was their home that they wanted to live in, and they just cannot sell it because of the EWS1 form and the cladding.
I keep getting constituents writing to me saying, “The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities promised that we would not have to pay a penny.” All power to the Secretary of State’s elbow to get developers to pay and to get the problem sorted out, but we need to see the concrete proposals on how that will happen, because, at the moment, leaseholders are still on the hook and still cannot sell their properties. Their lives are on hold while they are forking out huge amounts of money on extra insurance, and some still on waking watch—that is still happening. One developer told me recently that, for one development alone, the insurance premium has gone up from £50,000 to £400,000 a year. Those are enormous costs for ordinary people, not all of whom are wealthy; indeed, many live in shared ownership accommodation but are caught in leasehold properties.
Finally, I turn to the Metropolitan police, where we have seen a horrendous set of issues in the last few months and year. Child Q is a Hackney child, and she was degraded by the experience she had to suffer. However, it is not just about Child Q; there is a wider set of issues, including misogyny at Charing Cross police station. There is a culture issue in the Met. We have an opportunity—I look to the Minister on this—because the Home Secretary along with the Mayor of London will appoint the new commissioner of the Metropolitan police. We need somebody who can drive that culture change through and, dare I say, consider whether they might split the Metropolitan police by separating the counter-terrorism function from the day-to-day policing of London. It has got too big—it has grown like Topsy—and that is one of the contributing factors.
I cannot express enough to the Minister how triggering the treatment of Child Q has been, particularly but not only to black women in my constituency—black men, too—who have gone through real difficulties and had terrible handling by the police back in the day, and their children are still being stopped and searched far more often than their white counterparts. The anger is palpable and the hurt is real. Much more needs to be done in the short term. Perhaps we need to introduce proper training into our schools on people’s rights when they are stopped by a police officer. We have policing by consent, but we need to equip our young people so that they know what consent they have given and that they can acquiesce politely while knowing their rights and that the Met should treat them politely, too. We need strong, new leadership—all power to the elbows of those recruiting that—to change the culture in the Met, and that needs to happen now.

Wendy Chamberlain: May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker, the other Madam Deputy Speaker  and the whole House a happy and peaceful recess? Like other hon. Members, I will raise a few outstanding issues.
In the last few months, I have been in correspondence with the Department for Work and Pensions, trying to ensure that those held on remand but not subsequently charged do not lose their benefits. That is what the rules say, but a lack of proper guidance for DWP staff means that I have ended up with several constituents who have lost their benefits or been wrongly transferred to universal credit. The Leader of the House may know that once someone has been inadvertently transferred to universal credit, there is no way back. I was promised a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), on 13 January, and I hope that the Leader of the House will take the message back that I would still very much like that meeting.
While I do not want to make prolonged correspondence the theme of my remarks, I turn to the seasonal agricultural worker scheme, about which I first wrote to the Government in April last year. North East Fife is famous for many things, and its soft fruit and agriculture is part of that. I am sure that the Leader of the House, given his other vocation, is aware of that. However, there is no doubt that the labour shortages that we have experienced since the UK left the EU have put farms in my constituency under significant strain.
Last year, the additional contractors appointed to administer the scheme were appointed too late for the season in Scotland, so, by the time additional contractors came into place, the jobs were gone and the work was already happening. I am keen for that not to happen again, but I am concerned that it is. A food security debate is ongoing in Westminster Hall, and ensuring food security is becoming ever more critical. There are not enough placements under the seasonal agricultural worker scheme, associated costs are too high and guidance changes—sometimes it feels like it is changing as we speak—so farmers cannot prepare. Nobody is saying that people in the sector should not have good wages, but the minimum wage requirements that have been put in place for migrant workers are higher than the national living wage. Those farmers have already made price decisions and worked with their supply chains, and they are now being asked to absorb the additional costs. Squeezed farmers are already struggling and that will only put further pressure on food prices for our constituents.
I was grateful to meet Lord Offord from the Scotland Office about that issue. I was hoping that there would be a roundtable and further discussions with the Home Office. The Scottish Affairs Committee visited Perthshire and Tayside at the beginning of this month to look, particularly, at the issue of horticulture, as part of a short inquiry. We wrote to the Home Office two weeks ago to express serious concerns. We all want food on our tables rather than rotting in the fields. We want affordable food as well as support for our families, and we need to ensure that schemes are made fit for purpose as a matter of urgency. I am concerned about what this means for North East Fife.
To follow on from the comments from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), I notify the House that I have written to the Home Secretary this week to raise my concerns about the appointment of Sir Stephen House as the  acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Hon. Members may wonder why the MP for North East Fife is concerned about that, but those who have heard me speak in the Chamber know of my background as a police officer. I served in Lothian and Borders police until 2011, but someone does not have to have been in the police in Scotland to understand the legacy that Sir Stephen House left behind in the national police force and Police Scotland. That included the decision to allow armed officers to attend routine incidents, stop and search for juveniles and changes to the call handling system in the new national force, where routine failures led to a woman being left in her car for three days following a crash and subsequently dying. I have to mention the continuous and excellent work that my colleague in the Scottish Parliament, Willie Rennie—the MSP for North East Fife—did with the Bell family in that regard.
I am very concerned, because Sir Stephen was deemed not fit to lead Scotland’s police force in 2015, which was when he retired, and I ask why, even on a temporary basis, he has been considered fit to lead the UK’s largest force. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch about the recruitment process for the new commissioner and I hope that that is done as soon as possible. Sir Stephen has been Dame Cressida’s deputy for the past few years and we have all been in this Chamber too many times listening to the Minister for Crime and Policing responding to issues in the Metropolitan police. I hope that the Home Secretary moves that recruitment process forward quickly.
I will end on a positive note, with an odd declaration of interest: as a result of being the MP for North East Fife, I sit on the board of trustees for the St Andrews Links trust, which runs all the golf courses in St Andrews, so I am usually a popular person at certain times of the year. I am delighted to say that the 150th Open will be coming to St Andrews in July, and I do so because, when we get to the next Adjournment debate before the summer recess—I am delighted that that debate will be named after Sir David Amess; it sounds like a very fitting tribute—the Open will have taken place. It is appropriate to mention that because I have raised support for golf, support for golf tourism and St Andrews throughout my time here, and I very much hope that Members across the House who would like to come to St Andrews this July to celebrate that international sporting event will be in a position to do so.

Nigel Evans: Put me down for two tickets, please.

Andrew Slaughter: It is the nature of our job as MPs that we deal with some shocking events and grave injustices. Perhaps that makes us a bit case-hardened, but something happened in my constituency last week that really did shock me. The easiest way to introduce the subject may be to read a short article that was published in a local newspaper, the Brent & Kilburn Times, two days ago. It stated:
“The Pentecostal City Mission Church in Willesden has been evicted by a developer.
Fruition Properties evicted the church on Scrubs Lane without warning on Wednesday, March 23. The developers entered the  building at 7.30 am and changed the locks, leaving parents unable to drop off their children at the nursery and staff unable to retrieve personal belongings.
The Mission is a registered community asset and operates a nursery, foodbank, dementia care and other local community services.
Fruition sought planning permission in 2018 to knock down the church and build a mixed-use, 20-storey development. This would include 85 ‘residential units’, a cafe or restaurant, a retail space, nursery and place of worship. A condition of its approval was…the secure replacement space for the church and associated services as part of the new development.
The mayor’s Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation is the local planning authority, as the property is part of a strategic development site.”
The article quotes Rev. Des Hall, who runs Pentecostal City Mission church:
“We are shocked and saddened that Fruition took possession of this beloved church and vital lifeline for so many community members.”
It quotes me as saying:
“It’s unacceptable and quite frankly unbelievable news to hear that a developer has evicted a church, nursery and foodbank at a time where so many families are under financial strain to put food on the table. I have made my position to Fruition abundantly clear on numerous occasions and they have refused to meet to reach a solution, despite the planning policy clearly requiring provision for the church.”
It then quotes the spokesperson for the developer:
“We have been in discussions with the church for over two years regarding leases, occupational rights and either late or non-payment of occupational charges, even at a reduced rent. We regret the current situation, but we have been unable to come to a mutually acceptable agreement on how to move forward together.”
Let me say a little more about the church, which is a real institution in what is an extremely poor and deprived area. It has been there for more than 20 years. About 13 or 14 years ago, something quite miraculous happened: with a very large grant from EU structural funds and a smaller bank loan, the church was able to build what is now an extremely impressive building on a very prominent site on the corner of Scrubs Lane and the Harrow Road, providing all the services that hon. Members have just heard about. It serves communities in Harlesden, Willesden, College Park, Old Oak, North Ken and East Acton, including some of the poorest communities in London and indeed in the country. It is one of very few community services there; it is an extremely impressive show.
The front of the building is in my constituency, but the rear is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who opened the building 13 or 14 years ago; hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that she is much better at doing that. We are all thinking of her, because of the very sad announcement that she made earlier this week about her struggle—her successful struggle, I think—with breast cancer. She would otherwise have been with me, the congregation and the food bank last Friday, when we were out on the street because we could not get access to what was going on inside the church.
The development corporation is an extremely impressive and major project that includes the HS2 site, the largest rail construction site, Crossrail, and Park Royal, the largest industrial estate in Europe. It is busy trying to get on with redeveloping and regenerating the area under the guidance of the Mayor, but of course that attracts developers. Fruition Properties came along and bought the site, over the church’s head, from the bank  that had taken possession of it some years ago. It then applied for planning permission to build a large block of mainly luxury flats on the site.
There are disputes—I will not go into them, because we do not have time and it is not necessary—about how the church will be rehoused and what will happen while the development goes on. A court date was set for 7 June, so although things had clearly broken down, there was no rush to judgment. Indeed, before Christmas, I could see that matters were not going well, so I convened a meeting with the developer and the development corporation and we discussed matters. The developer—a guy called Mani Khiroya, the chief executive officer of Fruition—said “I will go away and talk to the church,” and they had a meeting. I saw the requests that the church made, which were entirely reasonable.
At that point, however, the developer said, “No, we are not going any further.” On 25 January, he sent me a letter saying:
“we have made the extremely difficult decision to ask Pentecostal City Mission Church to leave our building on Scrubs Lane…I will contact your office to arrange a meeting to discuss the above”.
He did not, so I wrote to him on 8 February asking for a meeting, but I heard nothing back. Again, there did not appear to be any particular hurry, because we had a court date coming up in June. Then, without any notice at all, private security guards went into the building early in the morning, asked the caretaker and cleaner to leave the building, and changed the locks. Everybody was locked out with all their possessions and belongings inside. As we have heard, children were turning up to go to the nursery on the site. I have met some pretty poor developers in my time, but this one really does take the biscuit.
Where does that leave us now? Well, it leaves us with a substantial coalition of people who have come together to fight what the developer is trying to do. They include representatives of the media: the BBC and ITV London came to the site last week, along with the local press, and I am pleased to say that the property press are taking an interest. Many local residents’ groups and associations with expertise are also involved, including College Park Neighbourhood “CONGA”. Julie McBride and Nick Pole have been there. Henry Peterson of the St Quintin and Woodlands neighbourhood forum is giving substantial support, as are the Old Oak neighbourhood forum and the Grand Union Alliance.
We will be in court quite soon. Lawyers are preparing for an injunction to allow re-entry. We have support from all the local politicians, including the leaders of both councils, Stephen Cowan and Mo Butt, and councillors including Wesley Harcourt and Alex Sanderson, and Matt Kelcher in Brent, and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central. We have had great support from the development corporation, which is now providing funds to keep the services going, and we are finding temporary homes for them as well. I particularly praise David Lunts, the chief executive.
I would like to see the Government join that coalition, because I cannot see any difference between what Fruition has done and what P&O has done. This is predatory capitalism. Fruition is victimising people simply because it can, thinking that it can get away with it. I will ensure that my remarks, and what is happening on the site, are well known to all the planning authorities, all the investors, and everyone on whose sites Fruition is looking to  develop in the future, because no one should have anything to do with this organisation until such time as it modifies its behaviour.
Let me end with a quotation from someone who uses the church’s food bank. The Rev. Des Hall will be there tomorrow; it will be freezing cold again, but he will be out in the street with his wife, his volunteers, his congregation, and the supporters who will feed—as they do every week—hundreds of people who queue all the way down Scrubs Lane. He will be there, but he will not be able to get into his church because the developer has locked him out. One of the people who use the food bank said this:
“I go there for food because my family is shielding. It’s a blessing. They do different breads, fruit and vegetables, cheese and potatoes.
It would be a shame if this happened to the church. I’ve never seen one that does so much for people so I always support it. It’s a poor neighbourhood but everyone helps one another.
It would be a shame if this happened to the church. There will be nowhere for these people to go.”
It is an outrage that this should be happening in our country in the 21st century. Something has to be done to stop behaviour of this kind. Something has to be done to reward those who are simply trying to provide decent services for those in most need. This is naked greed and opportunism, and I hope that when we are in court it will be shown to be an illegal act as well. I wish Des and his congregation all the best. I want to see them back in their church as soon as possible, continuing to do what they have done for many decades—serve my constituents, and the people of neighbouring constituencies.

Nigel Evans: Order. The winding-up speeches will start at 4.30. There are two Members left to speak, and I am sure they can divide the time between themselves. First, I call Fleur Anderson.

Fleur Anderson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this end-of-term debate and to raise several issues that are important to constituents in Putney, Southfields and Roehampton. My dilemma is always which ones to choose, but I have picked five issues. I will be talking about the Fulham pier proposal, wet wipes, cladding, mould and the employment Bill.
To start with, there is the future of the Putney boat race, which is back this weekend. You are very welcome to come along, Mr Deputy Speaker, as are all Members. We are welcoming everyone back to Putney after two years away because of covid, but the future of the Putney boat race on the Thames and all the sports engaged in by the river clubs on the embankment is being put at risk by Fulham football club’s proposal to build an 80 metre pier out into the river. The pier would have a Clipper ferry stop, and those ferries would make sports such as rowing and sailing on the river too dangerous, especially for all the young people who use it. About 4,000 members across 41 clubs along the river would be impacted. Those 4,000 members use this stretch of the river on average about twice a week. There are also around 30,000 participants in rowing races in the first quarter of the year. Approximately 1,400 children from clubs and rowing centres near Fulham football club use that part of the river several times  a week.

Bob Stewart: I cannot see how building an 80 metre pier into the Thames could be allowed to happen, in planning terms, because the river is used so much there, particularly for rowing—it is wonderful!

Fleur Anderson: I very much thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I ask him please to join the campaign; we have a petition he can sign. He is not alone in being incredulous about how this could be allowed to go ahead.
We had a public meeting about this last week, and I hope that Fulham football club will see the opposition from so many different clubs, and from the boat race itself. I hope the football club will listen to all those clubs and stop its plans to build this huge dangerous pier out into the river. I also hope the Minister can take this up with Ministers in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport so that we can talk about this and secure the future of the boat race.
My second issue is wet wipes. My campaign to ban plastic in wet wipes continues. The consultation that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs launched into commonly littered single-use plastic items—not the most snappy title for a consultation, but it had a huge amount of take-up because a lot of people support this campaign—has now closed. I am told that Ministers will be picking the issue up after Easter and consolidating the results for consultation. I look forward to seeing the options that are put to the Government and to continuing to work with DEFRA Ministers on this.
I want to offer my support and co-operation on moving forward to secondary legislation to establish a firm and reasonable date by which the consumer wet wipe industry needs to phase out the use of plastic wet wipe products. I want to praise Tesco, Aldi and Sainsbury’s for making the move in recent months to selling only plastic-free wet wipes. I hope this is just the start and that other companies will follow suit. There are many issues to be ironed out within the legislation, but I hope that progress will continue to be made with urgency towards banning plastic in wet wipes once and for all.
My campaign on cladding continues. I know that this has been raised by other Members, but it is a highly contentious issue across Putney, Southfields and Roehampton, where I have been supporting nearly 30 affected blocks for the past two years as leaseholders and residents face both physical and financial threats to their very existence. The Government finally seem to be listening to us on this issue, and I hope they come good on their promise to include legal protection for leaseholders against any fire safety costs in the Building Safety Bill when it returns from the other place.
I was hoping that by now we would have heard the results of the Secretary of State’s discussions with developers. We were promised this by Easter, but we have yet to hear anything and Easter is upon us. My constituents are incredibly anxious about this, but they are hopeful. However, there are some areas that are still not covered: buildings under 11 metres are not covered by any of the support measures; there is no Government funding for non-cladding defects; not all types of cladding are being funded or deemed eligible; and the building safety fund application and approval process is still painfully slow. Some blocks have been waiting 18 months to hear news.
It is not clear which developers are involved in the discussions and negotiations with Ministers. In some developments, the developers have gone bankrupt and might not be involved in the discussions. Will those developments be included? Waking watch costs are still having to be met, along with insurance premium hikes. In some cases in Putney, there have been increases in insurance costs of over 500%. These costs alone are bankrupting some residents, who then cannot move, whether or not the cladding remuneration is fully funded. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider all these points when the Bill returns after Easter.
I have another housing issue in my constituency that really concerns me. Sometimes when I visit residents, they open the door and I can smell the impact of mould coming through. Those houses are not fit to live in. They are not habitable, and this is causing a real health hazard for many families across my constituency. However, when they report it to Wandsworth Council, they are too often told that it is a lifestyle issue. I cannot imagine a lifestyle that involves living with mould so serious that children are getting asthma. The problem is not being addressed, and that is why I want to raise it. If I had my way, I would have a Minister for mould and we would sort this problem out once and for all, because no family should have to live with it.
Lastly, I want to raise the long-forgotten employment Bill. Employment rights and secure employment are vital not only in my constituency but across the country. I was very pleased to hold a Roehampton jobs fair, but I want to see the employment Bill come to this House. In the 2019 Queen’s Speech, the Government promised workers an employment Bill to improve workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU, making Britain
“the best place in the world to work”.
The Bill was supposed to
“Promote fairness in the workplace, striking the right balance between the flexibility that the economy needs and the security that workers deserve…Strengthen workers’ ability to get redress for poor treatment by creating a new, single enforcement body…Offer greater protections for workers by prioritising fairness in the workplace, and introduce better support for working families…Build on existing employment law with measures that protect those in low-paid work and the gig economy.”
I think we can all agree that all that is very much needed, but there has been no sign of the employment Bill, just a string of broken promises. In June 2021, the Government announced that they would introduce a new, single enforcement body, but they did not say when. In September 2021, the Government announced that there would be a new statutory code of practice to make it unlawful not to pass on tips to workers in full. Some additional childcare funding was announced in last year’s autumn Budget statement, but not the £1 billion promised. The Government also reneged on their promise to reform sick pay, abandoning the insecure workers who are most likely to be refused sick pay or who are entitled to such a miserable sum that they cannot afford to stay away from work. That is very much linked to our long covid debate earlier.
The question remains: where is the much anticipated employment Bill that we were promised? I hope that the Leader of the House will have some good news. Was it just an empty promise? Will we see it in May? Working people in my constituency desperately want to know.
I will finish by wishing everyone a happy Easter.

Nigel Evans: To resume his seat at 4.30, I call Richard Burgon.

Richard Burgon: I wish to speak on this matter while it is not sub judice. Julian Assange is currently being held at Her Majesty’s prison Belmarsh, a high-security prison, and has been for nearly three years. He is being held there on remand not for any violations of UK law, but solely because he faces extradition to the USA for his journalistic work with WikiLeaks. He is a political prisoner and I want to put on the record that a cross-party group of parliamentarians have been repeatedly refused even an online video meeting with Julian Assange.
He has pursued journalistic work that has exposed atrocities committed in the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well human rights abuses committed in Guantanamo Bay. Much of the horrific details that we now know of those events were exposed by Julian Assange’s journalism, and for that we should be grateful.
That journalism was carried out in our country. He was invited here by The Guardian, which along with TheNew York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El País —some of the biggest news outlets in the world—was among the first five news organisations to publish articles based on his work. It is journalism for which he has received numerous awards. Yet now he faces extradition to the US and a prison sentence of up to 175 years in a super-maximum security prison.
Civil liberties groups and leading newsrooms view the US Government’s prosecution against Assange with deep alarm. Amnesty International has said:
“Prosecuting Julian Assange on these charges could have a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression”.
The secretary-general of Amnesty International labelled it, “Politically motivated and unjustified”, and said that the case
“undermines press freedom, the rule of law, and the prohibition of torture.”
Reporters Without Borders, the International Federation of Journalists and press freedom groups Article 19, Index on Censorship and the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, as well as the National Union of Journalists, issued a joint declaration stating:
“Julian Assange…is being prosecuted for exposing US rendition, unlawful killings and the subversion of the judiciary. And the UK government is allowing extradition proceedings to continue.
The prosecution of Julian Assange was a political decision taken by the Trump administration”
and it
“creates a dangerous legal precedent, allowing any journalist in Britain to be prosecuted and extradited.
Our government must ensure the UK is a safe place for journalists and publishers to work. Whilst Julian Assange remains in prison facing extradition, it is not.”
The Washington Post’s executive editor said that it was
“criminalising common practices in journalism that have long served the public interest.”
President Biden was there as part of Obama’s Administration when the decision was taken not to prosecute Julian Assange. The message that I have is that that should be the position. If that does not happen, I call on the Home Secretary to use her powers and refuse to sign an extradition warrant.

Marion Fellows: The Tory cost of living crisis is the most salient issue for voters, including those in my constituency, superseding covid during the height of the pandemic. The Sunday Times reported recently that Tory Spads and staffers were told that the cost of living crisis was now the public’s primary concern, and that private polling showed that the issue had eclipsed healthcare. One source present said that the issue had “shot up” the polling graph faster than any other in recent years, noting that even the pandemic had not prompted the same reaction. A source added:
“The cost of living issue is a train about to hit us.”
Folk in my constituency, many parts of which are areas of deprivation, know all about poverty and the cost of living. Almost seven years ago, when I was first elected, I set up a poverty action network, which I thought would be a reasonably short-term thing. PAN sounds really posh—if the Chairman of Ways and Means had still been in the Chair I would have said that it was not pan loaf, but more square slice; she would know what I was talking about—but it is not posh. It is about organisations locally helping people in poverty who are struggling. We know that one of the biggest issues for people living in poverty is their mental health. I am going to take this opportunity to thank the organisations that for almost seven years have attended the poverty action network. Lanarkshire Links supports mental health services and helps folk to get through the bureaucracy and get the help they need. Scottish Association for Mental Health also comes, as does Lanarkshire Association for Mental Health, which has recently opened a lovely café in Wishaw, where people can get a really good cup of tea and a nice meal, and do yoga. I plan to use some of those facilities during recess—no pictures, please.
Other organisations in the network such as MADE4U IN ML2, which is the postcode for Wishaw, are in  the middle of the community. So are the Orbiston Neighbourhood Centre and a number of the local churches, such as Motherwell Baptist Church and Dalziel St Andrew’s Parish Church in Motherwell, which has a befriending service. The Centre Point organisations are in two of the most deprived areas, Gowkthrapple and Forgewood. These organisations are all run by volunteers, and all they want to do is help their local communities. They helped their communities to get through the pandemic, and they want them to prosper and be in better health.
I worry about my communities, because the cost of energy and food will be far too much for many of them. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) talked about a local church that went out and fed people, and my local churches also do that. South Wishaw Parish Church has taken over a community food bank. I have been told by a Minister that they were amazed at the generosity of local people, who were themselves in straitened circumstances but wanted to help others. That church also runs a New Life Recovery Hub, helping addicts.
Other organisations that help are also part of the network. The Miracle Foundation was set up by a local young woman whose nieces and nephews had suffered bereavement when their mother died, and there were no services to help them. She now goes across Wishaw,  Motherwell and right across central Scotland helping young people; I have nothing but admiration for these people. They give up their lives, they spend their money and they just want to help. Friends & Families Affected by Murder & Suicide, and Chris’s House help victims and families who have suffered huge loss and bereavement in awful circumstances. Motherwell football club has a community trust, and Motherwell is a real community football team. It helps with education and with wellbeing; it is just everywhere. I am very proud to be the MP who represents Motherwell and Wishaw.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is democratic as well.

Marion Fellows: Yes, the club is owned by the fans, and I absolutely take that point.
I am trying to rush through this, because others wish to speak. The Voice of Experience Forum is a network that introduces folk to other organisations that are doing the same thing. I have found that so many people are trying to help but they do not realise that someone else is already doing that, so this saves them time, money and effort, because people can be passed on to different organisations. Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire comes to see people, and I pay tribute to June Vallance, who retired in September 2021. She was a well-kent figure across North Lanarkshire and a real driving force.
I do not think I have mentioned the Wishaw, Murdostoun and Fortissat Community Forum, which was led for many years by David Summers, who unfortunately died in 2015. His wife Nancy has taken that on and been a leading force in it. We get people from the local Lanarkshire Baby Bank and from a wonderful organisation that comes called Full On. It runs workshops where people with mental health issues are taught how to play a musical instrument to help their mental health and make them feel better. We have autism organisations and the local veterans’ association come to us. I know I am going to forget people, because there are just so many good organisations locally. We bring in organisations that talk to people, and one of the ones that comes regularly is Social Security Scotland, which explains to organisations such as Lanarkshire Carers where they can get benefits and what they can apply for, and promises them help to do it. We have In Kind Direct, which is a national organisation, and the Family Fund, which does wonderful work with families with disabled children, and One Parent Families Scotland. My next speaker I hope will be Home Energy Scotland, because it is going to be really needed, as it gives advice on energy, how to save it, how to insulate the home and how to make life better. In the 21st century, in a country as developed as ours, there should not be the need that is being met by these organisations. I am sometimes ashamed that I have to stand here and talk about this. I am proud of the people who do this work, but I am ashamed that they have to do it.
Lastly, may I add my name to the list of those calling for the Sir David Amess—I was going to say “memorial” but that is perhaps a bit too strong—debate. I made my maiden speech in one of these debates, and I was inspired by him. I was inspired many times by the good work that he did.

Thangam Debbonaire: It is truly a pleasure to close for the Opposition in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) in her passionate description of the poverty action network in her constituency and of many other vital constituency organisations. May I also at the outset put on record my support for the David Amess debate? I am sure that the whole House is united on that. I also pay tribute to Madam Deputy Speaker, who opened earlier with some remarks about David Amess. We all remember him tenderly on days such as today.
I thank all colleagues from across the whole House for their contributions. It is a mark of our democracy that we make space in our parliamentary timetable for debates in which any and every matter of interest to many or some constituents, or perhaps only just one, may be raised. They are then put on the historical record, preserved forever, not only in the ephemeral online world of Hansard, but in the physical notation of our every word. I mention all that because I had the pleasure of visiting the parliamentary archive in this parliamentary Session. I do recommend it. There, one can be inspired by the sight of the original rolls on which legislation—such as that required for our great railways to be built—was recorded. I also saw the minutes of the 1791 Select Committee inquiry into slavery, which made very grim reading. Uplifting or appalling, dramatic or mundane—our every word here is recorded for history. I recommend a visit to the archive to any Member.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) opened the debate, standing in for the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), to whom we send our warmest wishes for his recovery. The hon. Gentleman led off with a fitting tribute to our late colleague Sir David Amess, following the tributes started by Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank him for opening the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) showed us the power of her work as a constituency MP. She is so much a role model for so many of us. I hope the Leader of the House will have heeded her call for the legal remedy that the family of her constituent Lillie Clack so desperately and so rightly seek.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) raised the matter of recognition for the relatives of blue light servicemen and women who are killed in the line of duty, in his customary eloquent and knowledgeable way. He referred in particular to the sacrifice of the family of PC Keith Palmer, who died protecting us. We have thought of him particularly in the past two weeks, given the anniversary of that atrocity.
The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), spoke with passion and knowledge about the many dreadful consequences of our housing crisis, not only in her constituency but, of course, beyond. I hope the Leader of the House will remember that a renters’ reform Bill has been promised by his Government in previous Queen’s Speeches. My hon. Friend also reminded us of the struggles of leaseholders not only in her patch but up and down the country,  including in my own patch, Bristol West. Other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), did the same. Again, I hope the Leader of the House will take note of the representations in this debate for the forthcoming Queen’s Speech and beyond.
I turn to another tragedy, of a different sort but perhaps equally calamitous for the people involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) spoke of the shocking incident in his constituency in which a developer in effect evicted a church, a nursery and a food bank. I will be thinking of his constituents tomorrow, as they operate the food bank out on the street. That incident should not be allowed to pass.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney managed to raise five important constituency issues—including her brilliant campaign against plastic wet wipes and the boat race—in record time. She also said something about a very long pier that I only dimly understood, but it sounds like a bad idea. I think that was the right way to look at it—

Fleur Anderson: indicated assent.

Thangam Debbonaire: It is a very bad idea. My hon. Friend did not mention her campaign about Hammersmith bridge, but she did manage to get that in this morning at business questions, and I think the Leader of the House heard her cry then.
Various Members raised important concerns about human rights and some specific constituency matters. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench heard the urging by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) for Ministers to learn the difference between the Black Country and Birmingham, along with the comments of other Members.
When this Parliament opened with the Queen’s Speech on 11 May last year, we were still in the depths of the covid pandemic. Proceedings were necessarily restricted and I was robbed—robbed, I tell you—of the chance to process with the previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), so I am looking forward to processing this year with the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer). Nevertheless, it is what is in the Queen’s Speech that counts, along with what follows it. The lingering legacy of covid could be addressed in the coming Parliament; for instance, by making the covid memorial wall permanent and by making sure that the covid public inquiry takes place with the thoroughness, sensitivity and accountability that it deserves.
At the start of this Parliament, who could have predicted that we would be ending it with a war in Europe—one that has shocked us all and united the House and the country? Many colleagues have mentioned it today, and on many days over the past few weeks, but I for one will never forget the experience of sitting in this place, together with Members of the other place—it felt like the whole country was watching us—as President Zelensky made democratic history by speaking proudly and profoundly on behalf of his invaded country and his people, in this place. I thank the Speaker and all the House staff who made that possible.
Many Members have mentioned the generosity of their constituents in responding to the refugee crisis. I add my voice to theirs and thank my own constituents.
This morning, the Leader of the House, or it may have been the hon. Member for Harrow East, mentioned that we will have the rescheduled debate on COP15. I am pleased about that because, whether it is the devastation of pollinators or the potential microbial offerings of the cryoconite microbial diversity in the Arctic glaciers—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Yes, I have a special interest in the subject: the very first Dr Debbonaire of my parish—a former pupil of the wonderful Cotham School in my patch, which turns out rather marvellous scientists—recently passed her PhD in that very subject. I make no apology for shoehorning in that mention. Cryoconite is a good word to get in, but it does not fit on Wordle, by the way.
As we come to the end of our Session, we thank all the Doorkeepers, the Clerks, the cleaners, the security staff, the researchers, the digital staff and the maintenance staff. I make particular mention of the catering staff who have expanded not just my waistline but the options for vegans, which many of you carnivores appear to be devouring as well, because occasionally I have not managed to get the vegan chocolate cake before others have already devoured it. I can recommend it if Members have not met it before.
I thank everybody in this place for their contributions to this debate and to the very many Bill Committees that we have had over the course of the last Parliament. I know that we are not quite at the end of this Parliament yet, but we are in a period of ping-pong between this place and the other place—a duel, if you will, as the Leader of the House called it earlier—when we will see the final results of those Bill Committee deliberations. I urge the Government to work constructively with the Opposition in the coming Parliament on how we manage parliamentary business, so that we are not bounced into positions by new things appearing in the other place, concerns about which have rightly been raised by Members on both sides of the House. We all know that there is a better way of doing it.
Members who serve on Bill Committees are not often given the recognition that they deserve. It is detailed—I would never say boring—work, but it certainly requires an attention to detail that many people perhaps do not realise that they will need when they come to this place. It is so important that we get legislation right. I particularly thank the Lords who sat late into the night for many Bills that really needed that extra attention, which was caused by the insertion of new things and also by just wanting to get it right. We, too, will always play our part to work with the Government to try to do the right thing by our constituents. I hope the Leader of the House has heard the challenges today from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney on the employment Bill and on the need for the building safety crisis to be addressed, on the nature and biodiversity crisis raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), and on so many other things that will need to be addressed in the coming Session. The Leader of the House will know that he has just a few short weeks in which to work with his colleagues on what is to come. I hope that he will have heeded the words that we have heard today. I thank all colleagues, and I wish everyone a very happy Easter.

Mark Spencer: I thank the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) not only for her approach to this debate  today, but for her approach as shadow Leader of the House. I look forward to working with her in the next Session and—I think she said this—to our striding out together during the Queen’s Speech, which gives me confidence that she does not think that I will be sacked before the Queen’s speech, so I am at least grateful for that. I can give her this reassurance: it is not me who is eating her vegan food, nor will it be at any point in the future.
It is a pleasure to conclude today’s debate, which has been conducted in the best of spirits, and I look forward to trying to get in as many comments as I can. I think that I have probably less than a minute per contribution, but I will of course do my very best to get through as much as I can.
I cannot really proceed any further without making reference to Sir David Amess. A number of speeches today have made reference to David’s past contributions in this debate and the fact that we should refer to the summer recess debate as the David Amess debate. Frankly, though, it does not really matter what the authorities do, because Members of this House will call it the David Amess debate, and that is probably the right course.
The debate started with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) standing in for the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and we are grateful to him for that. I hope that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee makes a speedy recovery and will be back in his place immediately after the Easter recess.
My hon. Friend started by talking about the pressure on refugees and how we should not forget about Afghan refugees, despite a lot of focus in this place on the Ukrainian situation. I think he is right. The Government’s resettlement scheme for Afghans has placed more than 6,000 people and continues to be supportive, but he was right to make that point.
My hon. Friend then went on to talk about Harrow Council. He is, of course, a worthy opponent to his friends on Harrow Council, not least by drawing attention in recent business questions to the fact that their speed of response is quite poor, and I know he will continue to hold them to account. However, he did take the trouble to praise the council for its safety at night campaign for women. Once again, that is worth flagging in the House—it is something the Government take seriously, which is why we have invested more than £30 million in our safer streets and safety of women at night funds to help women and girls to feel safer. I think hon. Members across the House will support my hon. Friend and Harrow Council in that campaign.
My hon. Friend also talked about the challenges of rented homes and the pressure of some of those homes being converted into houses in multiple occupation. That is a challenge that other hon. Members have also raised, and the Government are very much aware of it.
In addition, my hon. Friend mentioned access to GPs and the challenges many people face in getting a GP appointment. There was a debate in Westminster Hall earlier this week on that very challenge, particularly in association with new developments where facilities for new GPs are not put in place. The Government have made £520 million available to improve access to general  practice. I hope technology will help in some circumstances, because people who cannot have face-to-face appointments can have virtual ones, freeing up the space for those who need a face-to-face appointment.
My hon. Friend went on to talk about Stanmore station and the challenges of the planned development in its car park. I hope he will be successful in his defence against that development.
In conclusion, my hon. Friend talked about smoking and his desire to see the age for the purchase of cigarettes rise from 18 to 21. He is a long-standing campaigner on that topic, although I am personally a little more liberal than he is. I recognise the damage that smoking does, but I would hope that most people in the United Kingdom today are aware that if they smoke, they are risking their lives and will damage their health. I celebrate their freedom to make that individual choice and to continue to smoke if they choose, but they should be aware that they will damage their health and probably shorten their lives. We should all continue to ensure that colleagues and constituents are aware that that is what they are doing when they choose to smoke.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised a very personal case in her constituency. One cannot help but be sympathetic to Debbie, Michael and Donna, who lost Lillie in such tragic circumstances. The hon. Lady went on to talk about the challenges of changing the law on someone who has committed a terrible crime of that nature and is clearly guilty of dangerous driving or drink-driving being able to continue to drive until they are convicted.
That is a huge challenge, and a difficult one to overcome. I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that it is a long-standing principle in UK law that people are innocent until proven guilty. We have to go through a judicial process, and until someone is convicted in that judicial process, in the eyes of the law they are innocent. That means that an expedited process is required, to get from the offence to the conviction. We need a speedy response from the Crown Prosecution Service and our courts system to ensure that people who commit such heinous crimes are held to account very quickly. I hope she will extend my sympathy to the Clack family.
The hon. Lady also referred to some social media posts that have been put up about Lillie, which obviously add to the family’s pain. I hope there will be an opportunity for her to raise her concerns during the passage of the Online Safety Bill, which will have its Second Reading on the first day back after the Easter recess.
Next up we had my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who talked about the huge challenge of planning applications for small developers. I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will have heard her plea. She mentioned Astbury Place and Neil Taylor, who had a challenge with whether or not he was going to build a bridge. I wish him well with his campaign. I recognise that some constituents will take a different view. That highlights the challenge of being a Member of Parliament when we have constituents who take a different view on a single topic. She then went on to mention religious freedoms in Pakistan, which she has been a long-term campaigner on.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) talked about Julian Assange and his plight in a  UK jail. They will be aware that that case is currently going through the courts, so it is quite difficult to comment on it, but I know that between them they will continue to raise his plight and his case.
The right hon. Member for Islington North talked specifically about refugees, but was open in condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine, and I praise him for that. Where we differ is in our interpretation of the Government’s approach to Saudi Arabia. I understand that he has grave concerns about our relationship with Saudi Arabia. I think the best way to influence our friends around the world is to continue our dialogue, to continue to meet those people, to continue to trade with our friends in Saudi Arabia, and to try to influence their human rights and their record in their own country by friendly conversations and influence through our trading relationship.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made a compelling case for the Elizabeth Cross, which he said would be a great medal for those who had served in our emergency services. In fact I think he wanted to call it the Prince Philip Cross, comparing it with the Elizabeth Cross for military people. It is a worthy campaign and I add my support for it.
We had a quick wander down the chalk streams of the Chess and the Misbourne in Chesham and Amersham. I commend the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for all the work she is doing to protect those chalk streams, which are absolutely vital to our environment. I recognise the challenge that HS2 must be bringing to that part of the world with the construction that is taking place in her patch. Hopefully that pain will soon be over and we will be able to ride on HS2 once it has finished its construction process. She also paid tribute to the generosity of the people in her constituency. I highlight to all Members that there is a support centre in Portcullis House that will remain open over Easter for the people who need help.
We then got on to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey). He talked about Tipton, Great Bridge island, green spaces in Wednesbury, market traders, antisocial behaviour in Hill Top, and Rev. Mark Wilson and Vijay Gaddu. He got so much in that there is too much to mention. But we did get to  recognise the difference between Birmingham and the Black Country—I will not make that mistake. He talked about his drive of 45 minutes to go one mile to Great Bridge island. I feel his pain; I once had a car like that myself.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) talked about the huge housing challenges in her patch and tenants’ rights. I hope that that message will be received. I will make sure that the relevant Minister has heard her pleas. She went on to talk about the challenges that the communities of many colleagues across this House have with the Met police at the moment. Where wrongdoing takes place or racism is found, we will take action—she can have that firm commitment from the Government.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about a meeting with the DWP. I will make sure that happens for her, and I am sorry it has not happened already. She also talked about the Met’s management. I am sure that the Home Secretary will have heard her concerns and will receive her letter in due course.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) talked about the Pentecostal church on Scrubs Lane, which he also raised at business questions. I wish him well with that. I wish the reverend all the best in his pursuit of delivering through his food bank and feeding hundreds of people despite being locked out of his own church. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a huge campaigner in his patch and a formidable opponent. That developer will be concerned, having him as an opponent and an advocate for his community.
We then heard a little more about the boat race from the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and the pier that Fulham football club is building. I wish all those participating in Putney all the best. Finally, I am sadly out of time, but I was grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), which I enjoyed very much.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Ambulance Response Times: Shropshire

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Helen Morgan: I thank Mr Speaker for granting today’s Adjournment debate on a topic that is so important to my constituents in North Shropshire and to people across Shropshire and across the country. I start by making it clear that I am not here to criticise the hard-working NHS staff in our ambulance services and emergency departments. Indeed, I thank them for their incredibly hard and dedicated work in difficult and demotivating circumstances, but there is clearly a problem with the provision of emergency care in Shropshire, with complex causes, and I bring it before this House to urge the Government to take some action.
It was clear throughout my election campaign, and has been clear from my inbox since then, that stories of excessive waits for an ambulance are not a rarity. I have since urged my constituents to contact me and share their experiences. Just since Monday, my office has been met with a tidal wave of correspondence, each story as saddening and frightening as the last. A care home reported a wait of 19 hours for an elderly resident with a broken hip. An elderly diabetic man fell and dislocated his shoulder. He was advised not to drink or eat anything in case surgery was required, and then waited 15 hours for an ambulance to arrive. A disabled man fell in his bathroom and waited for 21 hours for an ambulance. He was fortunately lifted from the floor after eight hours by a helpful neighbour. A man waited with a stranger experiencing heart attack symptoms on the side of the road for hours, only to give up and drive the gentleman to A&E himself.
A man with a suspected stroke waited nine hours for an ambulance and a further five in the ambulance waiting to be transferred into hospital. A 92-year-old lady fell at 8.30 in the morning, suffering bleeding from the head and a broken leg. She was looked after by her 75-year-old neighbour for almost eight hours until the ambulance arrived, and then waited in the ambulance for transfer into the A&E department until 2.30 the next morning. She had not eaten since 6.30 the evening before her fall. An elderly woman fell down the stairs shortly after lunch. Her emergency carers—she has a red button to press for them—made her comfortable and called an ambulance, but they could not carry on waiting forever. After an 11-hour wait, she was alone with her front door open so that the ambulance crew could access her house. That was 3 o’clock in the morning.
I could easily spend the next half hour relating heartbreaking stories, and I thank all my constituents who contacted me for taking the time to get in touch and explain the scale of the problem. One story in particular brought the issue home, and some Members may have read about it in the newspapers. It was the story of a young footballer who slipped on AstroTurf while playing football at school. He dislocated his knee and waited so long for an ambulance that by the time one finally arrived he had developed hypothermia. I do not know whether Members can imagine the distress of this young man, and the teaching staff who stayed on in the dark, long after the school day had ended, as his condition deteriorated out in the cold.
What all these stories have in common is that they could have been much worse. I am sure everyone in the House would agree that nobody should have to suffer waiting an excessive amount of time for an ambulance, yet tragically in North Shropshire it is pretty common. I know this problem is not unique to Shropshire. I am sure that many colleagues have received similar emails describing similar events. In parts of Britain, an excessive wait for an ambulance has become normal.
The problems surrounding this crisis are complex, and I am not here to propose a simple quick fix. However, there are consistent themes at the core of the issue. It is vital that we recognise them if we are to work out how to move on from here. The first is the problem of handing over patients at the emergency departments in Shrewsbury and Telford. West Midlands Ambulance Service has told me that, on the day the young footballer dislocated his knee, 868 hours were lost waiting to hand over patients, and that nearly 2,600 hours were lost in the month up to 29 March. Handover times in Shropshire are significantly worse than in the rest of the country, and there have been times when every ambulance based in Shropshire is waiting outside a hospital to discharge a patient.
The hospital trust has declared a critical incident on no less than four separate occasions so far this year, and each of those incidents coincided with an increase in the number of heartbreaking stories coming into my inbox.

Lucy Allan: I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this incredibly important issue to the House. Such heartbreaking stories are common to all Shropshire MPs. Does she agree that a combination of factors—I am sure she will go on to discuss some of them—including the transfer of patients on to wards, as well as the inaccessibility of general practitioners, is putting additional pressure on A&E?

Helen Morgan: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I entirely agree with her. I will stress some of those points later in my speech.
The emergency departments of the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust report that they suffer from a shortage of space and staff, along with the additional challenges of separating covid patients—on Tuesday this week, the trust had more covid patients than at any previous point in the pandemic. The trust also reports delays in discharging patients who are well enough to leave hospital because it is struggling to find care packages or care home spaces.
A number of care homes in Shropshire are currently closed because of the pandemic. Shropshire shares the national problem of a shortage of care workers and care homes, which is probably exacerbated by our high proportion of elderly patients. The inability to discharge patients who would doubtless be better off at home or in a care home setting reduces the flow of patients through the hospital.
The impact of all this is that, because ambulances wait so long at hospitals, the vast majority of ambulance journeys across Shropshire begin in Shrewsbury or Telford. It is not possible to reach the most seriously ill patients towards the edge of the county within the target time if the ambulance sets out from one of those two towns. This, combined with the closure of community ambulance  stations, means that very few ambulances are free in places such as Oswestry and Market Drayton when people become ill and require one.
Another factor, as the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) alluded to, is the volume of patients accessing emergency departments, or being taken to one in an ambulance, because there is no other option locally, particularly in the evening or at the weekend. Shropshire has a worsening shortage of GPs, which is leading to patients attending emergency departments for relatively minor issues because they simply have no alternative. A key reason behind the problem of staff recruitment is the chronic lack of other services in Shropshire, but that is a debate for another day.
The Government must deliver on their promise to recruit more GPs, and they must ensure that people with non-urgent healthcare needs are provided with adequate resources in the community. I am incredibly proud that my constituents Sian Tasker and Lawrence Chappel in Oswestry and, beyond my constituency, Darren Childs in Ludlow, and other campaigners, are working tirelessly to keep this issue in the public light and are campaigning to keep their community ambulance stations open. It is partly because of their hard work that we are finally discussing this issue in Parliament.
I am afraid to say that, so far, the Government have refused to listen to the countless warnings by campaigners and those working on the frontline. The Care Quality Commission’s “State of health care and adult social care in England” report last year, gave a stark warning that overstretched ambulance services and emergency departments are putting patients at risk. The numbers speak for themselves. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives has found that, nationally, 160,000 people a year are coming to harm because of delayed handovers to A&E. Of those, a shocking 12,000 experience severe harm.
I have repeatedly asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to meet me and the West Midlands Ambulance Service to discuss how we can tackle local issues together. I am deeply disappointed that, so far, he has refused my request. It seems to many people in Shropshire that the Department of Health and Social Care is burying its head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of the issue we face. I take this opportunity to urge the Minister to meet me and my colleagues across the county to discuss the crisis and to hear some first-hand accounts of those left waiting in distress so that we can come to some sort of solution together.
I have no doubt that all hon. Members present, including those on the Government Benches, want to ensure that people at their most vulnerable are kept safe. I welcome the recently announced additional £55 million of support for ambulance services. I fear, however, that that money may not go far enough or may not be targeted in the areas of greatest need. The hopes of the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust are pinned on the Future Fit hospital transformation programme, which kicked off in 2013. It is reliant on £312 million of funding, the source of which may be an interest-bearing loan—I will happily correct the record if I am incorrect, but that is my understanding. Unfortunately, more than eight years later, a strategic outline case has still not been signed off. The estimated costs have spiralled by almost 70% and it is likely that they will not be covered by the Government.
The initial promises of urgent care centres in more rural areas—for example, one was guaranteed for Oswestry—investment in community hospitals and local planned care centres were all quietly dropped in the summer of 2015. Promises of investment in public health and prevention, which is a good idea and would have been welcome in Shropshire, are also apparently no further forward. We are consistently told that there is no more money in the pot for faster, better-resourced ambulance services or urgent care staff, yet the Government wasted more than £10 billion on personal protective equipment that is not up to scratch. It is time that they listened to the warning signs that they have been ignoring and finally step up to provide proper support for ambulance services and accident and emergency departments.
There are several steps that the Government could take right away to get to the bottom of the causes of the issue. The Secretary of State could commission the Care Quality Commission under powers laid out in section 48 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to conduct an investigation into the causes and impacts of ambulance service delays. That is a fairly simple step and the law already allows for him to commission the CQC. Once the Government have a professional assessment of the complexity of the causes of the delays to ambulance service response, they can take the correct steps, targeted at the correct causes of the problems, to make some rapid improvements to the service. As I have outlined, the causes will most likely lie in a number of areas across emergency and social care, but until they are fully understood by the right people, they cannot be resolved.
The Government could also pass the Ambulance Waiting Times (Local Reporting) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), which would require accessible, localised reports of ambulance response times to be published. Once the data was available, it would enable central and devolved Governments to accurately understand where the delays are and how best to tackle them, because we should be following the data and the facts to provide the right solutions and the right resourcing in the areas that need them most. That Bill is already written, it has had its First Reading and it is ready to go.
I brought this debate to Parliament to ensure that  the Minister and the Secretary of State understand the scale of the problem in Shropshire and, crucially, the urgency in resolving it. How many more elderly citizens will have to wait for 10 hours, with their front door open, for an ambulance? How many more people will have to wait at the roadside with a stranger who they believe might be close to death? How many more young adults will develop hypothermia when they initially have a trivial injury, such as a dislocated knee? How many more cases of serious harm, or even avoidable death, will it take?
I thank the Minister for being here this evening and responding to my speech. I also thank Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate. I take the opportunity to thank everybody in the Chamber for coming along and to wish them a happy Easter and a restful break.

Edward Argar: Just as I had the pleasure of giving the final speech in the final debate before the House went into recess before the last half-term, I have the same privilege today. To that end, I congratulate  the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. In the short time in which she has been a Member of this House, she has taken an extremely close interest in the issues of ambulances and healthcare for her constituents more broadly. She has been assiduous in raising them in the House, as she has today, or through other means with Ministers and the Department. I pay tribute to her for that.
The hon. Lady will be aware, as she has genuinely and openly said, that there are complex causes behind the challenges faced by her constituents, and also by people around the country, with the ambulance service and ambulance response times. Ambulance services have faced extraordinary pressures, which have been particularly exacerbated during the pandemic. I am sure the House will join me in expressing gratitude, as she did, to all the ambulance service staff in the NHS for their outstanding work and dedication during this time. I recognise the very powerful individual cases that the hon. Lady cited, suitably anonymised, to illustrate her arguments and her case.
As I have mentioned, the pandemic has placed very significant demands on the service. In February this year, the service answered over 760,000 calls to 999—this is nationally, and I will turn to the hon. Lady’s local situation in due course—which is an increase of 13% on February 2020. That places very significant pressures on the ambulance service and the wider NHS, and I will turn to the broader causes shortly. She was absolutely right to highlight that the issue is often not with the ambulance service itself—the number of ambulances or the number of staff—but about handovers and the ability to do turnarounds having safely deposited a patient at an acute setting in a hospital, but I will turn to that in a minute.
A range of other issues, as well of course as demand, impact on performance, including the need for infection prevention and control measures, which remain in place in hospitals. They may not be as acute or as severe as they were at the height of the pandemic, but they are still there, and that does have an impact. There are the handover delays the hon. Lady spoke about, which are linked to capacity with those infection prevention and control measures, but also to the ability either to treat and discharge or to admit patients to a hospital. In recent months, we have also had high workforce sickness absence rates, often down to covid and covid self-isolation, with staff quite rightly taking the view that when they test positive for covid they should stay at home until they do not.
In spite of these pressures—and this is in no way to diminish the point the hon. Lady made about the impact on her constituents, but is by way of context—the average response time in the west midlands to category 1 calls, the most serious calls classified as life threatening, was maintained at eight minutes and 11 seconds in February 2022. That was despite of a 40% increase in that category of calls on the previous year and a 16% increase locally in 999 calls overall. At a national level, the category 1 response time has been largely maintained at about nine minutes on average over the last several months—so not quite as good as the performance in the West Midlands—despite a 23.5% increase in those incidents compared with before the  pandemic. However, we are clear that there have been significant increases in response times in the other categories, which of course we must improve.

Helen Morgan: I just want to make the point that in Shropshire we are not seeing the same level of service that we see across the west midlands as a whole. I am calling for more granular data because I think some excellent service provided elsewhere in the West Midlands Ambulance Service area is overshadowing some of the specific problems we are seeing in Shropshire. In addition, the number of hospital admissions to the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust is running roughly at the same level as in prior years, so although the covid pandemic has provided challenges in separating out such patients when they arrive through infection control measures, it is not actually leading to a higher level of admissions.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I will turn to her specific asks in a moment.
However, I will turn now to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), which I am aware of. I have to be honest and say that we do not consider that the Bill would necessarily be the most appropriate way of achieving what she wants. The challenge with that legislation is that, at a time when we wish trusts to be focused on the delivery of frontline services, it is another administrative process of data collection. I would add that trusts of course operate at trust level, not at an individual station or county level, and trusts may cover a number of counties. So while I am aware of her legislation, it is not something that I believe would achieve the outcomes or be practical in the way she wishes, and she and I regularly have a to and fro across the Dispatch Box about a number of issues when she speaks for her party on health and care matters.
There is strong support in place to improve performance. At the national level, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire generously recognised, there was £55 million of investment last summer, in advance of the winter, to help increase ambulance staffing capacity to manage pressures. All trusts received a portion of that funding to expand capacity through additional crews on the road and additional clinical support in control rooms as well as extending hospital ambulance liaison officer cover at the most challenged acute trusts.
On overall staffing, which includes frontline clinical staff and the clinical support staff who work with them, our ambulance service has seen about a 38% increase since 2010—the Liberal Democrats can quite rightly take some credit for that from their five years in government—and, indeed, in the last year we have seen an increase of about 500 frontline staff. So we have increased staff and continue to increase available staff.
The £55 million was supported by an additional £4.4 million in capital investment—these are still national figures, but I will turn to her specific local circumstances—which helped to keep an additional 154 ambulances on the road during winter over and above normal levels. Call handler numbers, which are equally important, are being boosted with more than 2,400 on target to be in place by the end of March—the end of today. That is about 500 more FTE—full-time equivalent—staff compared with September 2021, with potential for services to increase in capacity further during the coming financial year.
NHS England and Improvement is also providing targeted support to the hospitals facing the greatest issues with delays in the handover of ambulance patients, helping them to identify short and longer-term interventions to reduce delays and get ambulances swiftly back out on the road. She is right that that is hugely important, and even more so in areas with large rural populations because of the distances involved. Trusts also receive supportive continuous central monitoring and support by NHSEI’s national ambulance co-ordination centre.
With clinical support in control rooms, the ambulance service is closing just over 11% of 999 calls with clinical advice over the phone, which is an increase of three quarters since before the pandemic. That helps to save valuable ambulance resources to respond to more urgent calls, with that clinical input ensuring that the advice and decisions are right.
The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that significant local support is in place to improve response times in her county. The West Midlands Ambulance Service is working with community partners to help avoid conveying patients to hospital where there is no clinical necessity, providing alternate treatment and care at home or in the community and helping to avoid unnecessary trips to hospital, thereby freeing up resources and hopefully providing a more pleasant experience for those patients.
In raw numbers, the West Midlands Ambulance Service conveyed over 600 fewer patients to hospital in February based on the clinical advice this year compared with two years ago. It has also introduced a clinical validation team of advanced paramedics who work in control rooms and clinically triage lower urgency cases and, where appropriate, signpost patients to other services, as I alluded to. In February, that team reviewed 967 cases in Shropshire, of which 61% of were not sent an ambulance, 14% were treated on the scene and just 25% were conveyed to hospital. That was based on the clinical triage, which I am sure the hon. Lady agrees should be central to any decisions made. That has played a significant part in helping the service to tackle the pressures.
Other practical solutions include hospital ambulance liaison officers—HALOs—who are paramedics who work with bed managers to smooth out the flow of patients coming to an A&E department. They can provide a constant flow of information about capacity to the strategic command cell at the ambulance service headquarters, escalating any issues and avoiding queueing where possible. There is also joint work to cohort ambulance patients at A&E sites, where a single ambulance crew takes responsibility for three or four patients. That releases crews to respond to outstanding calls in the community more quickly.
A new same-day emergency centre—SDEC—has been opened at the Royal Shrewsbury to divert patients, as clinically appropriate, away from A&E, improving handover times. In the two and a half years that I have been a health Minister, I have discovered that there are probably almost as many acronyms in health as in the Ministry of Defence. Surgical SDEC capacity at the Royal Shrewsbury has also been expanded and all SDEC units receive ambulances directly for suitable patients.
The hon. Lady rightly mentioned hospitals, and I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) is here and made an intervention. During her seven years in the House, she has been a regular and vocal advocate for her local hospital in Telford. I pay  tribute to her, because it was due to her campaigning and tenacity that there is an A&E locally at Telford. That is still seeing patients and helping to alleviate the pressure in Shropshire. She should rightly be proud of that, having successfully campaigned for it.
Action is being taken locally to improve the patient flow through hospitals by discharging patients more quickly to create bed space. The aim is not only to increase the number of discharges a day, but to bring more discharges forward to earlier in the day, when it is clinically safe to do so, to allow the effective discharge and transition back to care at home or in a care home. Health and care system partners locally are looking to create additional community and social care capacity to support timely discharge, create bed space to take patients from A&E and reduce ambulance handover times.
At a national level, we have set up a national discharge taskforce. As a Minister, I get almost daily statistics about where we are on delayed discharges across the country. It is a complex picture, with a variety of reasons behind delayed discharges. The hon. Member for North Shropshire is correct that some are about delays in getting into care homes or getting domiciliary care packages or rehabilitation packages at home. Some are also down to delays in the hospital in sign-offs and procedures, and there is more that we continue to do to drive those delays down.
Construction is also under way on a new modular ward at the Royal Shrewsbury site, with 32 additional beds in service by spring 2022. That is alongside a £9.3 million upgrade of the emergency department at the Royal Shrewsbury, delivering additional cubicles, a new and improved majors department, a new designated emergency zone for children and young people and a new clinical decisions unit. The first phase of that work is complete and all areas will be finished by spring 2022.
The hon. Lady raised a number of other issues, including the Future Fit model. We have been clear that funding of £312 million was allocated for that project, and that remains allocated. The challenge we face is that, thus far, the trust has not proposed a solution that meets that budget. We continue to work with the trust and to encourage it to do so. I hope that it will so that we can continue to drive that important project forward.
I will very gently push back on what the hon. Lady said about there being £10 billion of PPE that is not fit for purpose. She will know that that is not correct. In the statement that was made about write-downs, not write-offs, the amount was about £8.7 billion, and it was not all PPE, by any means, that was not fit for purpose. Only a tiny proportion of that was the case. A significant element of that was essentially due to over-ordering at the height of the pandemic to make sure that the frontline had the PPE that it needed. We were buying at the height of the market, and there is currently a glut of PPE, so its value has inevitably declined. Not all of it will be used, because we got more than we needed to make sure that clinicians and others on the frontline were not exposed.
The hon. Lady touched on local ambulance Make Ready stations and the changes to them. Decisions on reconfigurations and changes to that are made locally by the trust; it consults, but it makes those decisions. The Government do not have any power over those matters. The Health and Care Bill, which we debated yesterday, would give the Secretary of State greater  power over such reconfigurations in the way that she asked, but her hon. Friend the Member for St Albans argued against that. I gently say that that is a matter for the local trust and the usual NHS processes on reconfigurations.
The hon. Lady touched on, I think—forgive me if I am wrong—asking the CQC to look into this issue. It is entirely open for her or others to raise it with the CQC, and the CQC will make a decision or a judgment on whether it believes that it is appropriate or otherwise to look into the matter.
In the few seconds that I have left, before Mr Deputy Speaker calls me to order, I say that I recognise and do not in any way diminish the significance of the issues that the hon. Lady raised. I hope that I have given her some reassurance that we are working through these issues and that we continue to put the support in place to help her constituents in Shropshire and more broadly.
Finally, the hon. Lady requested a meeting, and I am conscious that she has raised the issue of correspondence. I have asked for that; I believe that that has happened since Christmas, as the Department works through the backlog. There is still a delay in correspondence, but I have pulled that out and asked for it, and I am happy to meet her and her fellow Shropshire MPs, together with the ambulance trust, to discuss their collective concerns or reflections that they would like to put to me as a Minister.
I conclude by wishing the hon. Lady a very happy Easter and by thanking her for bringing this to my attention and the attention of the House.

Nigel Evans: On behalf of Mr Speaker and the entire Deputy Speaker team, I wish a happy Easter and a good recess to all who work here.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.